Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 90 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
A new British research team has concluded concluded that

Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

This of course is very interesting to me, and we do have some data from some Australian stations out on the cold continent. So lets see analyse the data from there. Mawson Mawson is a place named after Australian explorer Sir Douglas Mawson. Unfortunately they only have max and min data down there, and whilst I hate analysing data where the time isn?t kept constant, we shall give it a go anyway.



The graph above shows deviations from the average minimum temperature at Mawson from 1954. Tests prove no significant increase or decrease (F = 2.22, p = 0.14). And the graph below shows deviations from the average monthly maximum temperature, of which tests again show no significant increase or decrease (F = 0.07, p = 0.79).



Macquarie Island is an island half way between Australia and the Antarctic. It is officially according to the ABM part of the great ice continent. So why not do some analysis on that. We have luckily this time, temperature data at certain times of the day, and instead of littering a post with 10 graphs I shall merely put links there for them.

And here they are. Temperature deviations from the average for the times of midnight , 3am , 6am , 9am , noon , 3pm , 6pm and 9pm .

Whist the data only goes from the 1960?s, we do see a pattern amongst the data. It seems that in the years 1963 to 1973 we had a less than average mean monthly temperature. From the years 1977 to 1989 the temperature was on average 0.3 degrees greater than average. And since then it has been up and down.

What is more interesting is the extreme similarity amongst the graphs. I had to even check twice to make sure that the data was correct and that they were actually not graphing the same information. They weren?t, and what this means is that the temperature deviations year to year at different times at Macquarie Island stay relatively constant. In that, in a certain year if we were to experience an increase in 0.5 degrees at 3pm, then there is a reasonable chance that we would experience a similar increase at 3am and 9pm and noon etc.

All test on the data proved that there was no significant increase or decrease in temperature (midnight F = 0.87, p = 0.355; 3am F = 0.63, p = 0.43; 6am F= 0.47, p = 0.5; 9am F = 1.46, p = 0.23; noon F = 1.72, p = 0.09; 3pm F = 3.32, p = 0.75; 6pm F = 2.44, p = 0.13; 9pm F = 0.97, p = 0.33)

Last edited by JonathanLowe; 12/19/06 12:48 AM.
.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
This is meaningless. What is the 95% confidence interval for the trend? It seems to me that the observed global warming trend of 0.6 ?C per century would fall well within your 95% confidence interval.

P values that are not very low are meaningless; they don't prove anything. The fact that you failed to obtain a p value that would strongly suggest that temperatures are increasing is not strong evidence to the contrary. For that you need to calculate the p-value for no significant deviation relative to the average global warming trend of 0.6 ?C per century. If that p value is very low then you have a significant result that points to Antarctica not warming as fast as the rest of the world.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Totally meaningless. This is absolutely hilarious.

If he has a degree in statistics I expect they'll be sending out a recall notice any day now.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
you well and truly know Morgan that I have more than a degree in statistics. Can you please stop lying, it really doesn?t add to your credentials ? that is if you have any. Still awaiting an apology from you.

And Count, for Mawson minimum: decrease in temperature at the rate of 0.011 +/- .015 per year.
Maximum temps: 0.0016 +/- 0.0125

and also in case you hadn't realised, confidence intervals and the p value are very much related.

but if you want to test the theory of difference in temperatures to a 0.6 degree increase per century in temperature then I can oblige.

There is no evidence to suggest significant lower maximum temperatures than a 0.6 degree increase at Mawson (F = 0.72, p= 0.4; -0.006 +/- 0.013 per year ? note that even though the difference is not significant, the trend is still amazingly at a negative 0.6 degree less trend per year).

However, there is evidence to suggest a significant lower minimum temperature trend than a 0.6 degree in crease at Mawson (F=5.26, p = 0.026, -0.017 +/- 0.015 per year).

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
But of course that "evidence" is a secret that you are totally incapable of providing a link to.

Did the CIA send you the "evidence" in a locked case via a black helicopter?

Do you see a problem here JLowe? On one hand you claim to have a graduate degree and on the other you don't provide citations to support your arguments. So far the only evidence of your degrees is in your blog.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
I haven't provided citations, because it is my own analysis.

"On one hand you claim to have a graduate degree"

please stop with the bs Morgan, you know the truth.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Jonathan, that's much better. If you do find a significant departure from the average global trend (perhaps by pooling together data from different places), then that is a result that will interest climate scientists.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
cheers count. Please see my post in the other thread, which is a reply in more detail.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
JLowe wrote:
"I haven't provided citations, because it is my own analysis."

An analysis that disagrees with that of CSIRO, NOAA, NASA, and essentially every reputable reference I can find.

And apparently that you can find too because were it otherwise you wouldn't be posting links to tour guides.

But lets return to the subject of this thread. You wrote:
"Antarctica shows no signs of warming up"

So, I presume, it is your claim that more ice is melting without any input of heat. Can you explain this without violating the laws of thermodynamics?


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
An analysis that disagrees with that of CSIRO, NOAA, NASA, and essentially every reputable reference I can find.


Actually no. CSIRO, NOAA, NASA and essentially every reputable reference I can find, have not done the in depth analysis of australia's temperature like I have, so they do not disagree with them.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
But lets return to the subject of this thread. You wrote:
"Antarctica shows no signs of warming up"

So, I presume, it is your claim that more ice is melting without any input of heat. Can you explain this without violating the laws of thermodynamics?


Well, according to the British Antarctic Survey

- Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
- There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.

Also
Comiso (2000) assembled and analysed Antarctic temperature data obtained from 21 surface stations and from infrared satellites operating since 1979. They found that for all of Antarctica, temperatures had declined by 0.08?C and 0.42?C per decade respectively, when assessed via these two data sets.

and...
Doran et al. (2002) examined temperature trends in this area of Antarctica over the period 1986 to 2000, reporting a phenomenal cooling rate of approximately 0.7?C per decade.
This dramatic rate of cooling, they state, "reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000," with the largest cooling centered around the South Pole and Dome C.

also...
Thompson and Solomon (2002) also report a cooling trend for the interior of Antarctica, while sea-ice concentration has increased and the length of the sea-ice season has increased over much of
eastern Antarctica and the Ross Sea."

and this too:
Watkins and Simmonds (2000) reporting on trends in a number of Southern Ocean sea ice parameters over the period 1987 to 1996, they found statistically significant increases in sea ice area
and total sea ice extent, as well as an increase in sea ice season length since the 1990s.

Hmm, so what was that question again?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
JLowe wrote:
"Actually no. CSIRO, NOAA, NASA and essentially every reputable reference I can find, have not done the in depth analysis of australia's temperature like I have, so they do not disagree with them."

You, an individual with no claim to expertise in climatology are going to stand up and claim that you, and you alone, are the decider (I love that Bushism) as to what is and is not "in depth analysis." I love it.

JLowe wrote:
"Well, according to the British Antarctic Survey"
and
"Comiso (2000) assembled and analysed"
and
"Doran et al. (2002) examined"
and
"Thompson and Solomon (2002) also report"

and provides no link.

Still ... the ice continues to melt at an accelerating rate. I asked you to explain this without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Do you see an explanation? I don't.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
actually, "CSIRO, NOAA, NASA and essentially every reputable reference" have only done analysis on maximum and minimum temperatures in australia. Not else. My case is proven and defended.

Cosimo (2000) - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2000)013%3C1674:VATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Doran et al. (2002) - http://www.uic.edu/classes/geol/eaes102/Doran.pdf

Thompson and Solomon (2002) - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract

Watkins and Simmonds (2000) - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000JCli...13.4441W

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
First reference:
"Manuscript received June 9, 1998, in final form August 31, 1999"

Second reference:
Decent. I'll follow up on it.

Third reference:
I'm not sure how to interpret climatology published by a medical publisher other than to assume that if they had something of value in climatology they'd have been able to publish it in a journal on climatology. No data and no link to any actual work.

Fourth reference:
Six years old referring to events 10+ years ago. So what?

Now you try these one:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml (2006)
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106798&org=NSF (2006)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/200603.html (2006)
http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/shelf_melting.cfm (2003)

You see the problem here JLowe is that science is not static. You can't just throw up work that has been supplanted and say ... see here's was the state of the art a decade ago.

If you want to take the minority view, and you are, then it is up to you to refute the work done in 2003-2006. The satellite pictures are not subject to spin control. You can't point to a decrease in sea-ice and claim it is something else.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
J
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 87
"You see the problem here JLowe is that science is not static"

Ohh I agree. That's my point. There are cases for and against. At the moment, we are not really sure if antartica is warming up or not because of CO2 levels, or if Antartica's ice is dissapearing or increasing because of man made CO2 levels.

YOu are right, the evidence is for and against. Both sides equally as strong in debate. So why then are we spending billions of dollars on this, apparently already decided conclusion, when there are a billion of other issues more important in the world, like for example, the starving and poor on Bangladesh, Africa, and elsewise?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
JLowe wrote:
"Ohh I agree. That's my point. There are cases for and against."

For and against what? Ambiguous statements?

JLowe wrote:
"At the moment, we are not really sure if antartica is warming up or not because of CO2 levels"

We know it is melting: And rapidly! Want to sit around debating it while the major cities in your country submerge?

Here is what we know for sure ...
1. we are increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
2. increasing CO2 means increasing heat absorbed.
3. increasing heat being absorbed means an increase in temperature.
Or are you now going to dispute matters of high-schools physics?

JLowe wrote:
"YOu are right, the evidence is for and against."

I never said that. There is no evidence against. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nyet! Stop spinning!

JLowe wrote:
"So why then are we spending billions of dollars on this"

We? We? You haven't spent a penny.

All of a sudden you are the great humanitarian arguing that it is impossible to feed the people of Bangladesh and Africa (how much of your personal money have you contributed to the cause in the last decade?) and also deal with decreasing our contamination of our environment. Since when does doing one preclude doing the other?


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Totally meaningless. This is absolutely hilarious.

If he has a degree in statistics I expect they'll be sending out a recall notice any day now.


I found this site whilst surfing the net. I am very interested in the current debate on climate change. But please DA Morgan can you keep the jibs and cheap shots for a less proffesional forum. I am keen to hear both sides of the debate. I find your approach very low to the ground DA Morgan. I am concerned that you have moderator below your name. Can you start being a moderator and not a comedian. This is the first site i have found that has someone being a contraion. It is refreshing to see but the level of debate from you DA Morgan is of grave concern.

Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
Welcome , Fact, this IS a good Forum, but we have a lot of "testosterone" flying around here at times. The Nay-sayers are a very vocal minority here when it comes to GW. In their world. everything's Jake, we have no worries. I guess the loss of the Larsen Ice Shelf a few years back was just Mother Nature cleaning house. Whattaya reckon?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
fvf wrote:
"But please DA Morgan can you keep the jibs and cheap shots for a less proffesional forum"

There are less professional forums? ;-)

There are two sides to this debate the way there are two sides to the debate about whether smoking causes cancer ... the way there are two sides to the debate about whether there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

There is no debate. There is only footdragging by the slow and the greedy.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
quote from DA Morgan, "There is no debate. There is only footdragging by the slow and the greedy"

Thanks for furthering the debate on "Climate Change"



Barry N Depledge
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11
Now we are told a hundred times a day that there is Global Warming. Where is the data on an increase in temp ?
I have seen JonathanLowe data. I am yet to see comparable graphs and explanation of methodology from the other side .
Can someone help with that data. i would like to preview it.
Does anyone have links ??


Barry N Depledge
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5