ClimateRealist
New member
I'll use the handy trend calculator from skepticalscience.com com so feel free to accuse me of using a realist's data set. http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Here are some trends:
1. RSS 1979-1998 (20 years) - Trend: 0.082 ±0.155 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.0082429 ?w=0.0018810 ?=17.050 ?c=?w??=0.0077670
2. GISTEMP 1980-1998 (19 years) - Trend: 0.118 ±0.123 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.011787 ?w=0.0018254 ?=11.420 ?c=?w??=0.0061687
3. HadCrut4 1986-1998 (12 years) - Trend: 0.147 ±0.194 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.014659 ?w=0.0029064 ?=11.093 ?c=?w??=0.0096803
4. UAH 1994-2013 (19 years) - Trend: 0.042 ±0.162 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.0042001 ?w=0.0019685 ?=16.855 ?c=?w??=0.0080816
Here is what I would say about these trends: There is nothing new about having to go back a long period of time for global warming to be statistically significant. The reason why global warming has not been statistically significant in the last 16 years is because we are talking about too short of time frame to firmly establish a trend.
For those of you who know what statistically significant means, then please show your reasoning while attempting to falsify my above statement
Here are some trends:
1. RSS 1979-1998 (20 years) - Trend: 0.082 ±0.155 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.0082429 ?w=0.0018810 ?=17.050 ?c=?w??=0.0077670
2. GISTEMP 1980-1998 (19 years) - Trend: 0.118 ±0.123 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.011787 ?w=0.0018254 ?=11.420 ?c=?w??=0.0061687
3. HadCrut4 1986-1998 (12 years) - Trend: 0.147 ±0.194 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.014659 ?w=0.0029064 ?=11.093 ?c=?w??=0.0096803
4. UAH 1994-2013 (19 years) - Trend: 0.042 ±0.162 °C/decade (2?)
?=0.0042001 ?w=0.0019685 ?=16.855 ?c=?w??=0.0080816
Here is what I would say about these trends: There is nothing new about having to go back a long period of time for global warming to be statistically significant. The reason why global warming has not been statistically significant in the last 16 years is because we are talking about too short of time frame to firmly establish a trend.
For those of you who know what statistically significant means, then please show your reasoning while attempting to falsify my above statement