Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
What is your point? I calculated the average temperature for this year and a mean year using that graph.
2010: 260,71 K
mean: 259,38 K
difference: 1,33 K
If the global temperature has been raised about 0,8 K in 100 years. 1,33 K in 50 years is about 3 x faster.
Very elegant. But shouldn’t you be dividing the 1,33 K by 25 years, given the average is over 50 years? That would make it 6x faster.
Anyway, it doesn’t get any better if you look at 2009, 2008 or 2007. Definitely warmer than the average.
Yes. Actually the green line is a mean temperature. It is not the starting point back in 50’s. The green line allready includes the recent very warm years. My 3x was a very modest value.
Elegant? No, cherry picking.
In what way cherry picking? Math allways tells the truth.
Amino, why do you think this is cherry picking?
Steve simply made the mistake to put up a graph that clearly shows he is wrong on arctic sea ice, which shows that he misinterpreted the graph. Is that so difficult to admit? It’s not like it is the first time he misunderstands the science on sea ice: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3377.
Folks:
Numbers do not lie but people use numbers to promote lies:
Buy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
You can get better at what you are trying to do!
Sense Seeker says:
December 14, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Steve simply made the mistake to put up a graph that clearly shows he is wrong on arctic sea ice
So the graph is about sea ice. I see.
desmogblog, hmmm, funny you’d link to it. It’s run by a man who profits, money profit, from global warming. I see where you are coming from.
Jussi says:
December 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm
In what way cherry picking? Math allways tells the truth.
You should rather use the actual data to get an accurate result. A pixel count will not be trustworthy. But it could yield a result you’d like. So that is cherry picking.
This global warming war is fought over 1/100ths of a degree. Pixel counts could easily throw that off.
But GISS has much of the arctic >4C warmer during November.
Where can you see this sort of discrepancy on DMI?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-november-numbers-out/
We also know that arctic temps are roughly the same level as 1938. We also know arctic temps dropped sharply in the 60’s + 70’s.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_3.gif
So please tell us where there is anything abnormal in the current DMI graph.
Here is my code
procedure TForm1.CalculateButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
var
color: TColor;
red, green: Integer;
r, g: Integer;
x, y: Integer;
count: Integer;
a, b: Single;
begin
red := 0;
green := 0;
count := 0;
for x := 0 to Image.Picture.Bitmap.Width - 1 do
begin
r := 0;
g := 0;
for y := 0 to Image.Picture.Bitmap.Height - 1 do
begin
color := Image.Picture.Bitmap.Canvas.Pixels[x, y];
if (color clWhite) and (color clBlack) and (color 16744448) then
begin
if (color = 255) and (r = 0) then
r := y
else if (color = 49152) and (g = 0) then
g := y;
end;
end;
if (r > 0) and (g > 0) then
begin
red := red + r;
green := green + g;
Inc(count);
end;
end;
a := red/count;
b := green/count;
a := 280 - 10*a/74;
b := 280 - 10*b/74;
Memo.Lines.Add(Format('2010: %f K', [a]));
Memo.Lines.Add(Format('mean: %f K', [b]));
Memo.Lines.Add(Format('difference: %f K', [a - b]));
end;
This is my code:
You should be find min/max y for the red and green pixels and average them. I think your code, because of the way bitmaps are stored in memory, is finding the highest value for each column of pixels. Since the current year temps have higher variability, your resulting current year temperature is likely too high.
You probably found just one flaw in a method that is likely inaccurate in other ways also. But Jussi claims he’s deduced something worth proving a point. To be more certain of things Jussi needs to look at the actual data. If he does he would find what Steven Goddard is finding.
I calculated the average of each column. It doesn’t change the temperatures much.
2005: +2,16 C
2006: +2,66 C
2007: +2,34 C
2008: +1,23 C
2009: +2,18 C
2010: +1,19 C
Turns out there’s one more issue, the code doesn’t filter the key. And there are missing data points where lines overlap, interpolation would be needed to fill in data. I also implemented this (without interpolation) and got very similar numbers.
meanT_1990.png – Year: -15.37C Mean: -16.32C Diff: 0.95C
meanT_1991.png – Year: -16.22C Mean: -16.17C Diff: -0.05C
meanT_1992.png – Year: -16.46C Mean: -16.11C Diff: -0.35C
meanT_1993.png – Year: -17.23C Mean: -16.51C Diff: -0.72C
meanT_1994.png – Year: -16.63C Mean: -16.23C Diff: -0.41C
meanT_1995.png – Year: -15.43C Mean: -16.34C Diff: 0.91C
meanT_1996.png – Year: -15.98C Mean: -16.37C Diff: 0.39C
meanT_1997.png – Year: -15.43C Mean: -16.23C Diff: 0.79C
meanT_1998.png – Year: -15.92C Mean: -16.76C Diff: 0.84C
meanT_1999.png – Year: -15.71C Mean: -16.63C Diff: 0.92C
meanT_2000.png – Year: -14.95C Mean: -16.19C Diff: 1.24C
meanT_2001.png – Year: -15.19C Mean: -16.10C Diff: 0.91C
meanT_2002.png not suitable for processing
meanT_2003.png – Year: -16.23C Mean: -16.54C Diff: 0.30C
meanT_2004.png – Year: -15.99C Mean: -16.13C Diff: 0.13C
meanT_2005.png – Year: -13.93C Mean: -16.18C Diff: 2.25C
meanT_2006.png – Year: -13.57C Mean: -16.25C Diff: 2.69C
meanT_2007.png – Year: -14.14C Mean: -16.48C Diff: 2.34C
meanT_2008.png – Year: -15.20C Mean: -16.42C Diff: 1.22C
meanT_2009.png – Year: -14.46C Mean: -16.62C Diff: 2.16C
meanT_2010.png – Year: -14.37C Mean: -15.54C Diff: 1.17C
Unfortunately, DMI doesn’t seem to release their data in text format, so there’s no comparison to the “real data” available.
Here are the four last year.
2007
2007: 261,67 K
mean: 259,45 K
difference: 2,22 K
2008
2008: 259,91 K
mean: 258,72 K
difference: 1,18 K
2009
2009: 260,69 K
mean: 258,58 K
difference: 2,11 K
2010
2010: 260,71 K
mean: 259,38 K
difference: 1,33 K
This year is not complete yet. The difference will be about 1,5 K by end of year. Anyway the arctic is warming up much faster than the rest of globe.
Strange. No reaction from the usual crowd here. Would they have noticed, do you think? Hello?!
Oh, I see. Night time in the US.
ice melts at ~273k
in fact, it must be melting like mad if the high anomaly shown on the map is correct!
Yes, that’s is some nifty calculation. But when you eyeball the graph during summer, when average temp is >273K it is obvious that during the summer, the high melt season, that it has been colder. Run those calculations on summer.
Even during that tipping point summer of 2007, for the days between June-September is it eyeball obvious that temperatures were not soaring, the fact is they were below average! Something else caused the ice to melt.
My guess would be that at temperatures above freezing point, ice starts melting, which costs a lot of energy, so that temperature doesn’t rise much further until all the ice is gone. What else would melt the ice except heat, do you think?
Did in even start to enter your head that the ice was transported to warmer regions so it could melt rather than melt in place. Most of the polar researchers admit the loss of ice is due to ocean currents transporting the ice from the Arctic ocean into the Atlantic to melt.
The ice could be melting because of changes in heat from the ocean, from ocean currents or possibly undersea volancoes (not as likely IMHO). Then there is the wind and ocean currents which push the ice around. Arctic ice is very thin, so it could be very susceptible to currents, wind or ocean warming. It certainly does not look like from heat from above, nor a greenhouse effect.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/
Could be, but if it is changes in the heat of the ocean, what causes that? That’s linked to the general global warming phenomenon – oceans and air exchange heat. Same for wind changes: what causes that?
At any rate, the following snippet gives an impression of the arctic ice cover changes since 1979. Lighter colours are older sea ice – white is 10 years old.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co68_tod0dQ&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]
Nothing unusual is happening in the Arctic. Your crowd cherry picked a time frame to make it look like alarming ice loss is happening. This is a usual ploy by you alarmists that are screaming bloody murder that the sky is falling because your chosen time period shows what you think is something unusual in Arctic ice. You could just as easily chosen a period that shows ice has been growing. But if you do that then you wouldn’t have any propaganda.
You are completely predictable. You are going over ground that has been cherry picked and covered ad nauseum. You are a clone. By then it’s easier to be a thoughtless clone than to actually think. Congratulations for being tedious.
Sense Seeker
Is Sense Seeker the only name you have used over the past year to post comments either here or at WaatsUpWithThat? Or have you used other names?
It looks like the global warming crowd has to work very, very hard to make it look like the Arctic is warming. Because a warming Arctic is what James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt MUST have to justify their claim of a warmest year ever for 2010. They will be the lone rangers claiming it so they will be in an island. That island is a warming Arctic. So here is the hammering on the warming Arctic propaganda already happening before the announcement is made. They are laying the groundwork.
Well they used to include Antartica too, but well… record ice and all.
I agree truthsword. “Global warming” science says warming is supposed to be showing up most at the Poles, not at just one Pole. They don’t like talking about the South Pole unless they push the Steig paper at you. But just like the Hockey Stick the Steig paper is running into continual problems.
paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/
My suggestion would be to visit Bob Tisdale’s website where one can get all the information necessary to understand ocean processes that affect weather and climate. That would include the Arctic.
The South Atlantic feeds the North Atlantic, which in turn feeds the Eastern Arctic waters. Go look at whether the SA is warming or cooling. 🙂 The winds/current determine how and where and the ice is transported. Notice the NAO, which has been in it’s positive phase for several decades is now shifting to a negative phase.
The Arctic is the exit door for global warming and the last refuge for AGW. It used to be Greenland was the ‘canary in the coal mine’, but that is a lost cause. There is nothing north of the Arctic, so as it starts it’s slow transition to cooling, the Antarctic will also move toward less cooling and the AGW movement will switch their storyline along with it.
It seems I recall AGW dictates warming at the POLES, but the SP has been lost in the dust heap of failed AGW predictions. Of course we could always discuss the tropical lower troposphere “hot spot”, but that is something Warmologists wish would just go away too.
slimething says:
December 14, 2010 at 5:44 pm
There is nothing north of the Arctic, so as it starts it’s slow transition to cooling, the Antarctic will also move toward less cooling and the AGW movement will switch their storyline along with it.
That sounds about right. They cherry pick out what suits them best.