bucket22 a posé la question dans EnvironmentGlobal Warming · il y a 10 ans

U.S. warming trend is slightly underestimated, according to the data from the Anthony Watts project. Surprised?

Mise à jour:

"When a graph slopes downward at the end, that means there is a cooling trend."

Two data points indicates a "cooling trend"? Does Watts teach you statistics too? As an exercise, use a spreadsheet to plot the linear trend through that data, or plot the 10-year mean.

Mise à jour 2:

"And that cycle shows that after heavy industrialization that a country will generally start to clean up its back yard."

That doesn't happen magically. It takes a concerted effort by an educated and objective population. It's starts by seeking to understand science rather than denying it.

10 réponses

Pertinence
  • il y a 10 ans
    Meilleure réponse

    The result is not a surprise. It is difficult to predict what subtle trends will emerge when analyzing large data sets. The best approach is to do the experiment as well as possible and accept what ever result nature gives.

    Menne, Williams and Palecki gave Watts due credit for his service to science.

    "wish to thank Anthony Watts and the many volunteers at surfacestations.org for their considerable efforts in documenting the current site characteristics of USHCN stations."

    Watt's reaction will determine whether he is a skeptic or a denier. I hope that Watts will recognize the verdict of the experiment.

  • twomey
    Lv 4
    il y a 3 ans

    i imagine all of it is in simple terms tutorial. the actual question is do we get the international inhabitants to modify its habit so as make a huge difference. i have self belief the answer isn't any. If it is actual, then we'd want to continually be gazing the thanks to evolve to the replace in climate no longer attempt to modify the replace. i have self belief in the destiny which will in truth be less expensive and extra powerful. besides if it appears that evidently organic warming is a better element and guy won't be able to quite make a huge difference then adapting to the replace is likewise a better option.

  • il y a 10 ans

    Does it really matter ?

    After all, there has been so many lies spread to support the global warming theory, your going to ping on someone that might have shot for an independant opinion and wasn't as accurate as you might think ?

    What makes you think your linked sites or sources are any more trustworthy ?

    We saw how East Anglia in the UK has been trying to manipulate data, we've also seen how weather models are so bad that you can draw almost any conclusion from then depending on your bias.

    So since the scientific community has been so poluted by threats, pulled money grants / funding and politics...no one seems to have an un biased and real estimate.

    But one thing we can believe, is reports prior to this political fervor along with some common sense.

    Like the polar bear drowning scare was a lie....75% live in Canada, not ice floats and the population has quadrupled since the 50's.

    Or How America in particular isn't solely accountable for a crisis since China and indi top almost the entire top 10 more polluters in the world.

    Maybe people should get a clue and read some history. Air and Water quality has improved alot since the 70's due to anti-pollution campagins. This trend would continue normally based on the stages of country developement. And that cycle shows that after heavy industrialization that a country will generally start to clean up its back yard. This has happened over 30 years of gradual change and there is no reason to destroy the American economy based on some alarmists whining about how they want more done on the 'green' movement.

  • Anonyme
    il y a 10 ans

    It doesn't surprise me that there are some divergences in the data. I think this shows the uncertainties that still remain. There are, as Nature magazine points out in its current issues "major gaps in the science of climate change"" (i'm quoting from memory, so sue me if it's not an exact quote).

    .

  • Que pensez-vous des réponses ? Vous pouvez vous connecter afin de voter pour la réponse.
  • il y a 10 ans

    I honestly don't care about a trend that small. The point I see is that the thirty year cycles keep coming up to a higher point:

    http://feww.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig-a2-lrg...

    The I's are tend to be points where disasters and extreme heat comes. So, it'll start cooling soon. The place where we actually have to worry is when the next cycle comes, sometime around and after 2020. If you look, you'll see then accelerating upward, supposedly do to greenhouse gases...

  • Anonyme
    il y a 10 ans

    I suspect Watts has tried an objective analysis of his own data, didn't like the results, and has remained silent about it.

    There have been several such analyses, some more formal than others. This one published in a peer-reviewed journal shows little difference, but a slight cooling bias among the poorly sited stations. It's not a large enough effect that I'm surprised, but an interesting result. Here's an earlier analysis by NOAA using Watts' data:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

    I wonder how deniers will spin this one. They'll probably just claim the study (and others with similar results) is biased. I'd like to hear their explanation as to why Watts hasn't done a similar analysis, if these results are wrong. There's nothing stopping him - he has all the tools and data necessary, and could have done it a year ago if he wanted to (others have).

    *edit* you have to love that the only thing deniers learn from this is that there's a "cooling trend" in US temperature data from 2006-2008. Brilliant.

  • andy
    Lv 7
    il y a 10 ans

    Not really since most climate scientists need to proof that man is causing this change. Then again, it is like asking a vegetarian if meat is bad for you. Also, once again, a change in temperature does not proof or disproof man made climate change.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    il y a 10 ans

    When a graph slopes downward at the end, that means there is a cooling trend. I wonder if you even bothered to read your links. The Skeptical science link shows a moderate warming trend since the 1980s with a sharp cooling recently. Their contention that it is underestimated is pretty much meaningless to me since I think the warming was generally good and not particularly surprising. I was a bit surprised at the magnitude of the recent cooling in the graph.

  • Oreo
    Lv 7
    il y a 10 ans

    I think they are wrong and must of taken the test at the equator when it has been record low temps in the US the past year. I didnt see a 100 degree day in Illinois last summer

  • il y a 10 ans

    i need not read further ant the introduction to see Hansen et al 2001 cited in http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthl... to not read any further. Hansen=activist. Not surprised, sorry.

Vous avez d’autres questions ? Pour obtenir des réponses, posez vos questions dès maintenant.