Search UHND…
Log in Register
Back to threaded view Full conversation · 14 posts

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

Eli 9950 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 26080 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 8023 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 2

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

      Eli OP9950 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 26080 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 OP9950 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
          • Level 5

            You're not thinking...it's all about the DATA...which is accurate...Not his interpretation of it.

            TyroneIrish 26080 posts

            Go back and read the explanation I gave you wrt inaccurate use of a single flat line from one end to the other of the graph. Again...there is clear "Acceleration" of global temperatures over the last 12 yrs, which is backed up by the continued rapid increase in Man-Made CO2 in the atmosphere.

            In effect, Dr. Spencer is being 'Hoisted on his own Petard'.

            View Single #6000046
            • Level 6

              Data? On latest update temperature anomaly is +0.61 °C. On previous update you posted temperature

              Eli OP9950 posts

              anomaly is +0.68 °C. It’s a 0.68 - 0.61 =0.07 ℃ cooling. Aren’t these anomaly updates DATA? Why do you call this anomaly change “acceleration in heating trend”. In fact it’s cooling. You made a false claim based on data. This is a fraud.

              The linear trend +0.16 C/decade is also a part of data, an important data. It’s not interpretation from by Dr Roy Spencer. UAH satellite data graph is a government funded assignment. Dr Spencer’s personal opinions, interpretations and papers cannot be shown on UAH data graph.

              Please be intellectually honest to answer my question of this thread. Or I will escalate it.

              View Single #6000083
              • Level 7

                You can't be serious, Eli ;-)...no global temperature plot is going to rise monotonically...you've

                TyroneIrish 26080 posts

                got to know this. So, I'm guessing you're just pulling my leg...nonetheless, for at least anyone watching this exchange I've attached an assessment of why even 0.1 deg.C increases beyond 1.5 deg. C threshold are worthy of concern...and we are definitely headed above that based on Dr. Spencer's data.

                Let me know what you think about it...

                Link: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/degrees-matter

                View Single #6000128
                • Level 8

                  The issue is you acted as if you track the global temperature by posting Dr Spencer’s data graph

                  Eli OP9950 posts

                  every month. But actually you don’t and you even don’t know how to read his data graph. That’s why you never gave concrete comments about the graph. You just gave very general a few words. This time your words is opposite to the latest data graph. But you had no idea until I pointed out.

                  When a meteorologist gives today’s weather update he always says today is warmer or cooler than yesterday even we are entering winter or summer. Because it’s about today. By comparing to yesterday, we can better understand today. You tried to act like a meteorologist, but you lack basic scientific training.

                  Btw, I did this not for anyone else. That’s your mindset as a propagandist to think that way. Propagandist needs audience. Unfortunately they don’t take you seriously. I did this for myself. I like to see your consciousness of guilt when you’re on the trial. When the defendant avoids addressing certain areas of the prosecution by changing the subject, he essentially admitted that those allegations on certain areas are true. You have fully shown consciousness of guilt, Tyroneirish.

                  View Single #6000134
                  • Level 9

                    Let's try a slightly different approach to understanding what Dr. Spencer's excellent data on Global

                    TyroneIrish 26080 posts

                    Temperatures tells us...

                    >First...print out a copy of Spencer's Sept., 2026 graph...
                    >Second...get a pencil and ruler
                    >Third...starting with the first data point in 1979, draw a straight line to the next lowest temperature point occurring w/in 3-5 years...then continue drawing straight lines in that fashion...all the way to the last 'Lowest Temperature' reading in 2026.
                    >Fourth...step back and note the "Acceleration" Upward (i.e. Heating) beginning with the next Low Point after 2012.
                    >Fifth...now put on your Thinking Cap and recall that Man-Made CO2 emissions have been rapidly increasing over the past 100+ years, causing global warming, which even Dr. Spencer agrees with.

                    If you can't grasp the reality and consequences of this evidence, I can't help you on this issue any further.

                    View Single #6000180
End of conversation