Share
clock Created with Sketch.
07/06/16
12:33
Share
Originally posted by mjp2
↑
Sorry ferro, I think your viewpoint isn't consistent with the information available.
Surface temps and a whole bunch of other factors show warming from well before the start of the satellite troposphere record. That is very obviously not an exact linear warming, but a linear approximation is a reasonable one to illustrate a longstanding trend from early in the century. As the other charts I posted show.
And the physics and science of the matter tells us we expect the troposphere to broadly follow the overall warming pattern.
So it is far more reasonable, as well as consistent with the physics of the matter, and the evidence of land and ocean surface temps; sea level rise; arctic sea ice loss; land glacier losses; proxy data including plant and animal ranges, etc, i.e. all the other scientific information we have; to plot a linear trend against the tropospheric temperature record.
On the other hand, your hypothetical step change theory, while maybe a valid statistical interpretation, is inconsistent with the science and everything else we have observed. Anyone who looks at a chart and concocts one particular interpretation of it, ignoring others and the context and out of period information available, might not only be a blinkered statistician, but a lousy analyst or scientist. And anyone who critiques that chart presentation as from a "statisticians bum hole" doesn't convince me that they are objective in their assessment.
Expand
The data graphed clearly illustrate that something happened around 2000. That there may have been a linear trend prior to 2000 does not justify applying a continuous linear trend over this period of data. There is clearly a discontinuity. It is this abuse of statistics that indicates that Climastrologists are hell bent on making the data fit their models, if for no other reason than their models can't handle non-linearities.