Off Topic » in reply to re: I think I see the source of your confusion

re: confusion

TB — 3/14/2009 4:15:28 PM (archived)

Most of the charts you see linked in this kind of discussion are "anomaly" charts, showing the line above or below the calculated mean. Laurie's first linked chart was one such. For these, the position of that line makes a difference for the position of the line, although, I agree, not for the slope.

They stopped calculating the mean in 2000. I e-mailed the researchers to ask them why. It shouldn't be that hard a question.

Charts can be constructed to say many different things with the same data. Below is the chart of the actual Northern hemisphere sea ice area. Below that is the anomaly chart. Which is more dramatic? Yet, both are using accurate data.

This is a chart of the total global sea ice. This is even less dramatic, although a downward trend is, as you say, visible in recent years. Note that we are drawing a lot of climactic conclusions based on thirty years of satellite data, and up until about 2000 it's pretty damn flat. I suspect this is one reason the mean calculation stopped there.

I have never said the world isn't getting warmer. It has been for about 150 years now. The data is real. Most of the drama is manufactured, often by careful selection of the range of the Y axis.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (46 posts)

• Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder - S - 3/10/2009 8:25:34 PM
  • If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal". - Bowser - 3/11/2009 10:44:27 AM
    • The problem is that almost all consideration of global warming is VERY short-term. - David F Mayer - 3/12/2009 10:45:10 PM
      • re: The problem - S - 3/26/2009 7:53:58 PM
    • The Null Hypothesis - S - 3/11/2009 8:54:28 PM
      • And what is there that says there are drivers to keep the current conditions are stable? - Bowser - 3/11/2009 10:25:23 PM
        • There is no permanent stasis in Nature - S - 3/12/2009 8:26:17 PM
          • I didn't say it very well. - Bowser - 3/15/2009 1:27:05 AM
    • Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect - S - 3/11/2009 8:05:01 PM
      • Gee, that's odd. - ER - 3/11/2009 10:35:43 PM
        • Well, actually... - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 11:01:57 PM
          • I didn't want to confuse the poor boy. - ER - 3/12/2009 12:04:09 AM
            • And all this... - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/12/2009 10:11:04 PM
              • re: And all this... - ER - 3/12/2009 10:42:03 PM
                • Hardly. - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/13/2009 12:32:30 AM
                  • re: Hardly. - ER - 3/13/2009 3:02:05 AM
                    • Hey Mr. S.... - Jody - 3/15/2009 2:35:59 PM
                      • re: Hey Mr. S.... - S - 3/26/2009 7:45:17 PM
            • Yes, I suppose that was insensitive of me. (n/t) - Laurie Street - 3/12/2009 2:28:54 AM
      • So what you are saying is... - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 9:16:17 PM
        • Threadbare argument - S - 3/11/2009 9:44:58 PM
          • I don't even know where to start... (n/t) - Laurie Street - 3/11/2009 11:02:55 PM
            • Perhaps with my first question - S - 3/12/2009 7:43:31 PM
              • No. Next? (n/t) - Tony - 3/12/2009 8:03:39 PM
                • And also... - S - 3/12/2009 8:53:59 PM
                  • Show me the conclusive physics/models that show increasing "greenhouse gasses" produces no "greenhouse effect" (n/t) - Tony - 3/13/2009 12:16:34 PM
                  • Good luck. For AGW there aint no such animal as falsification. ;-) (n/t) - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/12/2009 10:06:26 PM
                    • Bingo. - TB - 3/13/2009 5:23:20 PM
                      • Well said - S - 3/26/2009 7:59:44 PM
                      • Once Upon a Time... - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/14/2009 1:27:13 AM
                      • CO2 vs temperature - Laurie Street - 3/13/2009 8:36:37 PM
                      • Ice graphs to present - Laurie Street - 3/13/2009 8:21:17 PM
                        • It's the mean calculation that stops at 2000, not the data. (n/t) - TB - 3/13/2009 10:55:32 PM
                          • I don't understand what you're saying - ER - 3/13/2009 11:39:50 PM
                            • re: I don't understand what you're saying - TB - 3/14/2009 12:45:01 AM
                              • You obviously don't understand what a linear regression is. - ER - 3/14/2009 2:08:15 AM
                                • I think I see the source of your confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 2:39:27 AM
                                  • re: I think I see the source of your confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 2:46:57 AM
                                    • re: confusion - TB - 3/14/2009 4:15:28 PM
                                      • fusion confusion - ER - 3/14/2009 5:16:28 PM
                                        • Average - TB - 3/14/2009 6:25:12 PM
                            • A better link to the graph in question - ER - 3/13/2009 11:56:46 PM
                • Oh? - S - 3/12/2009 8:51:28 PM
                  • try looking @ more than a decade - tony - 3/12/2009 10:56:20 PM
  • It's not a mental disorder. They know exactly what they're doing. (n/t) - ER - 3/11/2009 2:07:02 AM
  • Not surprising. - SDAI-Tech1 - 3/11/2009 1:30:19 AM