Search UHND…
Register
Back to threaded view Full conversation · 7 posts

Tyroneirish, where on Dr Spencer‘s latest data graph is “ an acceleration in Heating Trend” shown?

Eli 9948 posts Original UHND Member
Posted

It is a fraud in science to make a false claim intentionally from published data.

You posted dr Spencer’s UAH data graph just a month ago. Actually you posted its updates many times in the past. Every time when you posted its updates you made “acceleration in heating/warming trend” claims . Now you posted its new updated data graph. You’re obligated to specify where on the latest graph an acceleration in heating trend is shown. Thank you.

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=644425

  • Level 1

    Thanks for the question...look at the entire graph...very little change from 1979 until a sudden

    TyroneIrish 26061 posts

    rise in the '97-'98 period (~20 yrs)...then relatively steady around the 0 deg.C line until 2014 (~15 yrs)...followed by (using mean pts) a 0.6 deg.C Increase from the 'Zero' line (~12 yrs).

    Given the very rapid and unabated increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (from the burning of Fossil Fuels...as explained to Mark H)...and no dedicated effort to stop such increases by the USA, or China in the near term...I would expect such an increase to continue at least on a linear path...reaching a total of 1.8 deg.C (on Dr. Spencer's plot) by 2050...never mind what it could be by 2100 w/o a decrease in FF usage. Ergo...a sudden Acceleration of Global temperatures...with IMO, massive impact on Humanity from sea level rise, natural disasters and changes in food production volumes in current locations.

    Using a Flat Line assessment from 1979 doesn't do justice to what's been happening over the last 10+ years

    View Single #644601
    • Level 2

      CO₂ and temperature increase are NOT linear

      MarkHarman 8020 posts

      Dr. Curry mentioned (and I also saw this in another source) the relationship is you need to double the CO₂ to get the same temperature increase. So of course, doubling from 100 ppm to 200 ppm yields the same increase as going from 200 to 400, etc.

      View Single #6000004
      • Level 3

        Mark, over the last 800,000 years (before our Industrial, FF Burning, Age) the CO2 level varied by

        TyroneIrish 26061 posts

        120 ppm on average...enough to create Ice Ages and Interglacial Ages...in just ~150 yrs the CO2 concentration has increased for the typical high of 300 ppm to 425 ppm...i.e. a Doubling...from the previous MAXIMUM...and the trend (see NOAA data from Mauna Loa) has not stopped its rapid increase.

        Since the natural "Sinks" (Oceans and Terrestrial Forests) are being filled, or depleted and CO2 takes many decades, if not hundreds of years to be absorbed...we are in very serious jeopardy already...The sooner we switch away from Fossil Fuel burning for Heat and Power, the better off our Progeny will be.

        Note that ~60% of the world's population lives on or very near Ocean coasts...have a little concern for those who will follow us.

        View Single #6000006
    • Level 2

      Your problem is when you read Spencer’s graph you only look for individual monthly/yearly point.

      Eli OP9948 posts

      That’s why you posted Spencer’s data graph every month even this month is not much different than last month and didn’t provide anything new to what you claimed. You treat Spencer’s data graph as a weather graph.

      But when we look at the graph, we don’t just check individual monthly/yearly point, we look for specific structural landmarks and data metrics. Because we treat it as climate data. We look for the trend. In Spencer’s data graph the trend has been +0.16 C per decade. But let me get back to your monthly/yearly point first. This is where you made claim of “acceleration in heating trend”. But you are also wrong here.

      That point you mentioned is 1998. But we had a super El Niño in 1998. Even it’s almost 30 years ago, I believe most of us here still remember that monster. Many records were broken then. Dr Spencer’s data is unsmoothed data (pretty raw). They include the ENSO signal (El Niño/La Niña). They do not remove or filter out ENSO noise. That’s why you see the spike (“acceleration” in your words). But that’s a WEATHER signal, a noise. You need to remove that El Niño noise to get a true climate signal.

      Back to real important information from Spencer’s day graph. It is the trend of +0.16 C per decade. Please check every data graph from Dr Spencer that you posted. The trend has been consistently 0.16 C per decade. So, there is no acceleration in heating trend from Dr Spencer’s data graph.

      Do you know what +0.16 C per decade means? That means 0.16c x10 = 1.6 C. After 100 years, i.e., by the end of this century, the warming will be just 1.6 C increase if the current trend holds and we still keep emitting our CO2 at current pace which is huge. 1.6 C also means all predictions by those models are wrong. They are deadly wrong. They predict, if we continue to emit CO2 like we did in past 30 years, temperatures rising will be 4.4 C by the end of this century.

      Do you realize every month when you posted Dr Spencer’s data, you actually rejected alarmists’ disaster predictions?

      View Single #6000002
      • Level 3

        Thanks for hanging in there, Eli...First off, by using only a single straight line to represent

        TyroneIrish 26061 posts

        graphed data puts you at risk of missing the kind of acceleration that's taking place with Dr. Spencer's measurements over the last 12 years. If you do some research on this, you'll get this kind of response...
        ---------------
        "Why a Straight Line Hides Acceleration"

        > It assumes a constant rate of change: A straight line has a single, unchanging slope. Acceleration, by definition means the slope is changing (getting steeper) over time.

        > It averages out the details A single line of best fit through accelerating data will typically understate the data points at the beginning, overstate them in the middle, and understate them again at the end, smoothing out the exponential or quadratic curve
        --------------

        Note that Dr. Spencer is an avowed CC Threat denier...so a Straight Line presentation works for his premise, and hides the very obvious 'Acceleration' over the last 12 years that is in contrast to the flat periods prior.

        Now, as for the Super El Nino we are experiencing...please don't be like some others on this forum and hide your eyes....just read the attached link that presents the reasoning for a linkage between these recent extreme El Nino storms...and Climate Change.

        Admittedly, there is an active debate going on...but don't forget that the NOAA Atmospheric CO2 concentration data from Mauna Loa Observatory is Rock Solid...and the Human FF Burning sourced component (with No C-14 present) is readily identified ---> showing sharply Increasing amounts...e.g. a range from 180 - 300 ppm over 800,000 years...to 425 ppm in just ~150 years. THATS what you call "ACCELERATION"....and it's virtually ALL Man Made.

        I assume you have a Scientific/Engineering background as I do...don't hesitate to ask for clarifications...as I will of you.

        Bottom Line:...I maintain my contention that global Tropospheric temperatures are increasing at an Accelerating Rate.

        Link: https://frontiergroup.org/articles/super-el-nino-and-climate-change-what-is-the-connection/

        View Single #6000005
        • Level 4

          Pls stay on the thread’s topic. If you disagree with Dr Spencer’s methodology, why did you post his

          Eli OP9948 posts

          stuff? You posted them every month, every year. Why did you post something you don’t agree with but you didn’t make comments in those posts to declare you don’t agree dr Spencer’s linear least-squares methodology and its result? It doesn’t make sense. It’s not an issue of single post. You posted so many times about Dr Spencer’s UAH data.

          linear fits methodology or polynomial fits methodology or other methodologies all have advantages or disadvantages. Again, if you prefer a different way, not Dr Spencer’s linear way, thats fine. But that’s not the topic of this thread.

          View Single #6000007
End of conversation