1321: "Cold"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:07 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Of course, since we have no idea what point he's trying to make that single data points are unreliable, since nearly everyone (including the comic) made that point on page 1.
My point was, and is simple enough.

Winter temps are trending down for the areas mentioned in the comic. While St Louis was "where you grew up", certainly the other cities also are suffering the same cooling trend for winters. Snowfall data also supports this.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:52 am UTC

schapel wrote:Taking a closer look at Missouri weather, it looks like they had a really bad drought in the 1930s, and drought conditions are now returning.
Well, since last April, Missouri is above average for precipitation. 30 year trend shows more precipitation. They should be alright.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:24 am UTC

SFX wrote:
schapel wrote:Taking a closer look at Missouri weather, it looks like they had a really bad drought in the 1930s, and drought conditions are now returning.
Well, since last April, Missouri is above average for precipitation. 30 year trend shows more precipitation. They should be alright.

Man, considering how problematic selective timelining was in this thread, I'm not the least bit surprised you jumped right back into it. .02 inches positive trend for 30 years -pretty serious 'above average precipitation' eh? Not surprisingly you needed to be pretty selective about what window to look at, which is disapointing since you're replying to someone pointing out drought conditions ARE RETURNING. If you look at a ~100 year window, Missouri is drying, if you look at a 15 year window, Missouri is drying.

But yeah, you know, cherry pick that data. Still/again.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:37 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:If you look at a ~100 year window, Missouri is drying, if you look at a 15 year window, Missouri is drying.

But yeah, you know, cherry pick that data. Still/again.


15 year trend shows +22.66" a century

100 year trend shows +3.12" a century

(you have to set the trend data after following the link, you can't direct link to a trend using their software)

So 100, 30 and 15 year trends all show increasing precipitation. No drought in the future. That must really bother some people.

In case you can't see it, your links to do not go to the annual precipitation for Missouri.
Last edited by SFX on Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:53 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:46 am UTC

SFX wrote:
Crissa wrote:Of course, since we have no idea what point he's trying to make that single data points are unreliable, since nearly everyone (including the comic) made that point on page 1.
My point was, and is simple enough.

Winter temps are trending down for the areas mentioned in the comic. While St Louis was "where you grew up", certainly the other cities also are suffering the same cooling trend for winters.
The eastern parts of the US and Canada (and maybe the very tip of South America) were the only parts of any continent that had a cooler than average winter this year.

Image

Snowfall data also supports this.
Snowfall data don't support temperature trends one way or the other, really, because precipitation can go up or down while temperature does its own thing, and unless warming is so significant that most of what would have been snow comes down as rain instead, snow isn't necessarily going to be coupled to temperature.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Weeks » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:18 am UTC

SFX wrote:(you have to set the trend data after following the link, you can't direct link to a trend using their software)
what browser/setup are you using? I just clicked on it and could see it well enough on Firefox.

And there's a neat little blue line in the middle of the chart that goes ever so slightly downwards. Did you miss it? Here it is
Spoiler:
Image


I've isolated the blue line in it so that you can see it better:
Spoiler:
pickable cherries.png
pickable cherries.png (1.13 KiB) Viewed 4317 times
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby addams » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:42 am UTC

I sometimes wonder where all the water is.
Most of my life, it was locked up in Ice.

The maps and graphs on this thread usually show large areas of warming.
It seems the areas of drought are ....well..UnExpected.

Remember; We were told. "Expect Drought."
That somehow did not compute for me.

Rambling On and On.
Where do you think, 'they' put the water?
Spoiler:
I thought, Water in the Air?
What goes up, must come down.

How does warm dry compute?
What goes down, might stay down?

No! We know how water works.
When it is warm, it becomes vapor.

That's all I know.
Except; The Pacific Coast of the US has received insufficient Sky Water.

(shrug) I kind'a like it when Snow is not hunched threatening from the hills.
A lack of snow is not a personal problem for me. I like it. Snow is Weird!

Snow is a nice Toy.
Fun to play with.

Snow can make almost any kind of Work, harder.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The eastern parts of the US and Canada (and maybe the very tip of South America) were the only parts of any continent that had a cooler than average winter this year.

No need to even bring South America into it. (Although to be fair this map doesn't show this year's winter there. We don't have that data yet.)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:53 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:We don't have that data yet.
Well we have the global data for winter 2015, and we can even look at the trends worldwide. Which of course clearly show the cooling trend for the areas in the comic. As well as areas in the rest of the world.

20 year trend

15 year trend

10 year trend

At which point somebody will want to move the goalposts. You have to use thirty years!

OK, thirty year trend shows the cooling.

Then the goalposts will get moved to "but globally!, even when the discussion is about the US, and especially Missouri and other large cities.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:18 pm UTC

But, again, you're the one cherry picking the data, and as we've linked more inclusive data sets repeatedly to show your claims to be untenable, you ignore it outright.

For example, your response to me on this very page was to link two graphs that clearly show the opposite of what you are claiming.

So, shrug.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:34 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The eastern parts of the US and Canada (and maybe the very tip of South America) were the only parts of any continent that had a cooler than average winter this year.

No need to even bring South America into it. (Although to be fair this map doesn't show this year's winter there. We don't have that data yet.)

Yeah, fair enough. I should have said cooler than average December-February.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:49 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But, again, you're the one cherry picking the data, and as we've linked more inclusive data sets repeatedly to show your claims to be untenable, you ignore it outright.
No, I just ignore your false claims.

You don't seem to understand how to use the CAG software, and like I said, you can't link to a trend, it always shows the entire period. (what it show on your computer will not always match what the link shows) Your links do not show what you think they do. (copy the link, and open in a different browser, that way you can confirm what I am telling you)
Izawwlgood wrote: If you look at a ~100 year window, Missouri is drying, if you look at a 15 year window, Missouri is drying.
So your claim, and your links are bad.
Weeks wrote:
SFX wrote:(you have to set the trend data after following the link, you can't direct link to a trend using their software)
what browser/setup are you using? I just clicked on it and could see it well enough on Firefox.
Your browser might show it, but the link won't when somebody else click it. If anyone had actually followed the links, you would know this already.
Weeks wrote:And there's a neat little blue line in the middle of the chart that goes ever so slightly downwards. Did you miss it? Here it is
Spoiler:
Image
You haven't even looked at your image. It displays precip for January from 2000, but uses the Jan trend from 1895. Completely useless for annual precipitation. How can you not know this? It says it on your image.

Here's the actual data, using the Ohio Valley data. (Missouri matches this, but the larger climate region is more useful for discussing long term changes)

1970-present
Spoiler:
Image

2000-present
Spoiler:
Image

100 year trend
Spoiler:
Image

and to hammer home the point, the colder winter trend
1986-2015
Spoiler:
Image


Of course you can check for yourself. Now that I showed you what you are doing wrong. I got several laughs from your attempts to claim I was wrong, if it's any consolation.
Last edited by SFX on Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Snowfall data don't support temperature trends one way or the other,
Of course it does. Snowfall is always higher when it's a cold winter, and lower when it's a warm winter. That is basic meteorology, unless you are talking about an ice cap, or Antarctica or some very high mountain climate.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:07 pm UTC

I can't help but notice two of your trends are shifted fifteen years?

I think the problem is with your browser. Other users are reporting being able to click on the links and seeing things just fine. If it's genuinely just a browser issue, try switching to Firefox and clicking. Or hitting 'Plot' and looking at what we're showing. It's working for me just fine in Firefox and Chrome.

Genuinely not sure why you're shifting your claims to Ohio now? And why you ignored gmal's post?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Anyway, here's the graph with actual context (plus a trendline to prove to the rest of you libtards that there was some brief cooling from 2000 to 2010, take that Gore!)

The attachment tempfull.png is no longer available


30 year trend for CONUS, Jan-Feb data

Image

Cohen noted that the global cooling trend is for Jan-Feb, when he talks about the cooling boreal winter trend. The US matches the global data.

The Ohio River Valley includes Missouri, and the Missouri data matches the trends for the climate region.

US JanFeb 1986-2015 winter.png
CONUS J-F trend 1886-2015

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:12 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I can't help but notice two of your trends are shifted fifteen years?
Ah, I see the problem. Wrong image. Thanks.
Last edited by SFX on Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

SFX wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Snowfall data don't support temperature trends one way or the other
Of course it does. Snowfall is always higher when it's a cold winter, and lower when it's a warm winter.
Always? So precipitation trends have nothing to do with how much snowfall an area gets? Do you have any actual data to back this up beyond claiming it's "basic meteorology"?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

Can we pause a second - why are you focusing on Jan-Feb? You're taking 2 month snapshots now and keep moving your time window around.

Try a 3 mo snapshot. Or 4, or 5. All of those show pretty substantial warming trends. Hilariously, 1 mo looking at Jan also shows warming, and it's only Feb that seems to be cooler, US wide, in the window you've listed.

So, that's an intriguing phenomenon, I suppose, but not terribly pertinent other than serving as an angle for you to cherry pick from.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:18 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Do you have any actual data to back this up beyond claiming it's "basic meteorology"?
Of course. I never post anything that doesn't have good evidence to support it.

If you want to argue the matter, start a thread about it.

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:22 pm UTC

march ohio river 5 month trend 86-2014.png
5 month trend Ohio Valley climate region NCDC data


Izawwlgood wrote:Try a 3 mo snapshot. Or 4, or 5. All of those show pretty substantial warming trends.


Instead of making things up, I just go with the evidence.

It's much easier that way.

Obviously since we don't have March 2015 data yet, we can't say for sure. Except based on the month so far, it's going to make that trend much colder.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:30 pm UTC

Now I'm really confused - you tried showing a 5 mo window in a specific area (the area of the country Gmal already said showed cooling), and it shows a very slight cooling trend over a 30 year window.

When your last post, the one I was responding to, was showing the Contiguous US over a 2 mo period and showing cooling. Which was my point - Feb is the only month that the Contiguous US showed cooling in over the time window you're looking at.

Just, respond to what's actually being said. You're shifting your goal posts with every single response. Look at 1 month windows for the Contiguous US (check Dec, Jan, Feb, March if you want), then try 2 mo windows then 3, then 4. You'll see Feb is the only month that shows cooling in the Contiguous US. If you want to shift the goal posts and only look at the chunk of the US that has showed cooling, then, sure, cool, that is true - a part of the US showed a cooling trend.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:31 pm UTC

SFX wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Do you have any actual data to back this up beyond claiming it's "basic meteorology"?
Of course. I never post anything that doesn't have good evidence to support it.

If you want to argue the matter, start a thread about it.
No, it's a claim you brought up, so either you defend it in the thread where you brought it up or stop bringing up nonsense you're not willing to back up.

I should clarify that I'm willing to believe there's an average correlation everywhere that has a significant number of above-freezing days in a typical winter, because of course colder average probably corresponds to more days below freezing, and so what precipitation there is is less likely to fall as rain.

What I want to know is how tight the alleged correlation is. You said "always", which I know is bullshit because nothing about the weather has so nice a correlation as that. But maybe the correlation is higher than I would expect, and I would welcome actual data to that effect instead of more unsupported claims by you.

And I'll specify what I want you to provide: Seasonal or Dec-Jan snowfall on one axis, and Dec-Jan average temperature on the other, for at least one major city (so I know you're not just cherry picking an outlier), complete with trendline and r-value.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: so either you defend it in the thread where you brought it up or stop bringing up nonsense you're not willing to back up.
You are claiming it's not true that snowfall is related to colder winters. Then trying to say it's my claim.

Are you seriously suggesting I made up the basic meteorological fact? That cold winters are associated with more snow, and warm winters have less snow? You expect me to defend basic knowledge about weather? In this thread?

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:51 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Now I'm really confused -
I actually believe you. This might help. I stated clearly "Winter temps are trending down for the areas mentioned in the comic."

Then proceeded to show you the evidence.
SFX wrote:Winter temps are trending down for the areas mentioned in the comic. While St Louis was "where you grew up", certainly the other cities also are suffering the same cooling trend for winters. Snowfall data also supports this.


The confusion may be from trying to drag global, or the CONUS data in, when it's not what the comic was about. Moving the goalposts rather than accepting that the data supports exactly what I have always said about this comic.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:23 pm UTC

Nono, I'm not confused as to what you're trying to show, I'm confused why you think repeatedly shifting the goal posts is going to convince anyone of anything.

To recap since you've returned from being banned from this thread for cherry picking and arguing in extremely poor faith-

You've claimed that 2 mo windows in Missouri show cooling over the last 30 years, though you have also linked incorrect trend lines to show this, and also decided to change over to the Ohio Valley as it suits you. I pointed out that if you look at 3-6 month or really, any month aside from February, the trend is actually warming for every month or collections of month that includes more than just Jan+Feb or Feb+March. You responded by linking Contiguous US data for a specific set of months that show warming.

You also failed to respond to gmal's map that shows aside from part of the midwest, there's a general warming trend.

Yeah, please be clear - I'm not having a hard time following you, I'm having a hard time believing you could actually attempt to argue a point this dishonestly.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:29 pm UTC

SFX wrote:The confusion may be from trying to drag global, or the CONUS data in
Then maybe you shouldn't have tried to drag the CONUS data in?

Don't fucking bring up a dataset and then whine about other people wanting to continue talking about that dataset.

SFX wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: so either you defend it in the thread where you brought it up or stop bringing up nonsense you're not willing to back up.
You are claiming it's not true that snowfall is related to colder winters. Then trying to say it's my claim.

Are you seriously suggesting I made up the basic meteorological fact? That cold winters are associated with more snow, and warm winters have less snow? You expect me to defend basic knowledge about weather? In this thread?
I am not suggesting you made it up. I am quite familiar with global warming denialists pointing at every single snowstorm and claiming it somehow disproves that the planet is getting warmer.

What I am suggesting is that your claim, "Snowfall is always higher when it's a cold winter, and lower when it's a warm winter," is simply not true, whether or not you made it up.

You've already moved the goalposts yourself, in the process of building a straw version of my belief. Now you're simply saying "that cold winters are associated with more snow", but that isn't what you actually said before.

And yes, I've admitted that a correlation no doubt exists. But if you're going to use snowfall data and temperature data as proxies for each other, there needs to be a fairly high correlation, which you haven't demonstrated exists in general.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:32 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Nono, I'm not confused as to what you're trying to show, I'm confused why you think repeatedly shifting the goal posts is going to convince anyone of anything.
I agree, shifting the goalposts will not convince anyone. That's why when I show you a thrirty year trend for winter, that shows cooling winters for the area mentioned in the comic, nothing you do will convince me of anything to the contrary.
You see? That was my original point, in the thread. It's been trending colder for winters, using St Louis but also including other northern cities for good measure.

Izawwlgood wrote:To recap since you've returned from being banned from this thread for cherry picking and arguing in extremely poor faith-
I was banned for a month for "insulting" somebody, it was never clear who.

Izawwlgood wrote:You've claimed that 2 mo windows in Missouri show cooling over the last 30 years,
That's a blatant lie. What I typed is right there still, just quote it, don''t lie about it. Your credibility is shot at that point.

Izawwlgood wrote:You also failed to respond to gmal's map that shows aside from part of the midwest, there's a general warming trend.
That's just so wrong, it's impossible to explain why you are wrong.

gmalivuk wrote:And yes, I've admitted that a correlation no doubt exists. But if you're going to use snowfall data and temperature data as proxies for each other, there needs to be a fairly high correlation, which you haven't demonstrated exists in general.
Considering how poorly you are understanding the NCDC graphs, and the official data, which clearly proves my point about temperatures, what chance will official snow data have at mattering to you?

I mean, if I show you, will it matter at all?

I showed you a thirty year trend for temperature, and it didn't matter. You responded with a single image, which is confusing weather with climate. How will snow data make any difference to you?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

SFX wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:And yes, I've admitted that a correlation no doubt exists. But if you're going to use snowfall data and temperature data as proxies for each other, there needs to be a fairly high correlation, which you haven't demonstrated exists in general.
Considering how poorly you are understanding the NCDC graphs, and the official data, which clearly proves my point about temperatures, what chance will official snow data have at mattering to you?

I mean, if I show you, will it matter at all?

I showed you a thirty year trend for temperature, and it didn't matter. You responded with a single image, which is confusing weather with climate. How will snow data make any difference to you?
Look, if you're too lazy to actually find the data to back up your own claim, just say so.

I haven't even been talking about the graphs. Izawwlgood is already doing a fine job calling you out on that part of your bullshit.

I questioned your claim that snowfall data shows a cooling trend, you responded saying colder winters always have more snow, and have since refused to actually support your claim at all.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Look, if you're too lazy to actually find the data to back up your own claim, just say so.
I clearly have always backed up everything I stated. Even going to the trouble of trying to educate others how to use software the NCDC supplies, and even grabbing images to make it easy for you.

Did it matter at all? Now you want to move to snowfall, with out ever acknowledging the temperature data I showed you.

I showed you a climate trend, you respond with a single winter. That's a basic mistake. Why would I waste time with the snow data if you can't grasp the difference between thirty years, trends, and a single year?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

SFX wrote:Now you want to move to snowfall
No, you brought up snowfall.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

It's already been pointed out that you're cherry picking your windows, and I'm not surprised that you've completely ignored the point. Again.

What you tried to show, that is, last 30 years Dec-Jan-Feb of the US 'cooling'. Actual warming is .01F/decade. But convenient that you link a form of map that doesn't display trends there.

The point about February skewing things stands;

Nov-Dec-Jan shows +.43/decade
Annual showing +.22F/decade
Ohio Valley, same window, annually +.1F/decade

Ohio Valley, same window, Nov-Dec-Jan, heh, hilariously +0.0F/decade exactly

And now, finally, your favorite window, Ohio Valley showing a cooling trend over Jan-Feb-March

So, yes, a specific region of the US, at a specific point in time, when viewed through a specific window of 3 months, shows general cooling. What else did you want to cherry pick to stand on?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:04 pm UTC

But FUCK, I don't know why we're doing this again! This is the same shit you were doing before you got banned, and we linked all this shit for your benefit the last time! You've just repeated the same shit, with a few more moved goalposts! I'm not even apologetic here for the double post, this shit is old and so goddamn typical of denialists.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Azrael » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:10 pm UTC

Let's talk about what people actually call "winter": It's December through March. Then, let's look at "winter" (December through March) temperature data for the Ohio Valley from 1970 through today:

Capture.JPG


And I suppose the same for Missouri may be in order:

Capture2.JPG


[Add data & plots from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ Input selections are self-evident]

That's the time frame (1970-now) the period (Winter) and the location (Missouri, standing in for St. Louis) that the comic discusses. And that data shows an unmistakeable warming trend. And why Missouri not St. Louis? I'm making the assertion that statewide (or larger!) data is a more accurate portrayal. Single data points are junk.

SFX, no one is convinced by your arguments when you post short duration data sets (e.g. only Jan-Feb) and skip about with inconsistent areas, durations or time frames. It's either sloppy -- you can't be bothered to provide consistent data -- or it's dishonest. Why'd you pick 1986-2014 earlier? "Because if you run Missouri from 1986 to 2014 you can show a roughly -1F cooling trend!" If you're trying to make a case that warming stopped somewhere around 1986 in Missouri, you need to say it. Explain why 1986-2014 is important, but 1970-2014 isn't -- maybe 1978 and 2012 are outliers that are inaccurately weighing the trend lines? Maybe an analysis of a longer time frame can clearly show a large warming 1950-1970, that the tail effects are still pulling 1980-2010 trend upwards?

It's time to actually state a clear hypothesis and provide quality data analysis that is consistent with it. Because beating your "The Comic Was Wrong" drum is boring, meaningless and demonstrably incorrect. And when you toss insults about with great regularity? Everyone's written you off as a troll.

I kicked you out last time, I'll do it again.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby addams » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:43 pm UTC

SFX wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: so either you defend it in the thread where you brought it up or stop bringing up nonsense you're not willing to back up.
You are claiming it's not true that snowfall is related to colder winters. Then trying to say it's my claim.

Are you seriously suggesting I made up the basic meteorological fact? That cold winters are associated with more snow, and warm winters have less snow? You expect me to defend basic knowledge about weather? In this thread?

Wait.
Wait.

There are some Facts you are leaving out.
The Facts about Winter where it Snows.

Snow is Weird and Freaky-Deaky Stuff.
I am not an Expert on the Stuff.

Yet; Even I know, in Snow Country, available Water is Required for Snow Production.
Number of feet of snow is not simply a, "How cold was it?" number.

Weather is interesting.
Everyone gets to play, Weather.

Meteorology and Climatology are Hard Sciences.
This Comic can be Educational.

Teach us.
Take us back to The Basics, if need be.

The comic is about our perceptions.
How soon we forget. ....

The best Meteorologists and Climatologists on the planet can not Guarantee the Atmosphere will not Blow the fuck Off!
Or; Some other Werid thing might happen.

They do seem to speak with One Voice.
"Responsible Stewardship is a Darned Good Idea."

Responsible Stewardship may, just maybe, will allow us to live on This Rock in Peace.
Spoiler:
Do we want to live in Peace?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:30 am UTC

Oh incidentally, I looked up data for Boston and Dec-Jan temperature as a function of seasonal snowfall (since that's the direction you were inferring, SFX) has R=-0.5. So yes, there's a correlation there, but it's not super robust.

When I get home, if I still care at all, I'll compare that relationship to the one between total precipitation and snowfall. I have a sneaking suspicion that'll be a significantly stronger correlation.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SFX
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:33 am UTC

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby SFX » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:07 am UTC

Azrael wrote:Let's talk about what people actually call "winter":
I use the meteorology term, it's scientific. Here's why.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Azrael » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:17 pm UTC

SFX wrote:
Azrael wrote:Let's talk about what people actually call "winter":
I use the meteorology term, it's scientific. Here's why.

Then why'd you use Jan-Feb here or Nov-March here? You're claiming that Dec-Feb is a superior time frame, but you aren't actually using it. This is the sort of inconsistency that suggests your analysis is agenda driven -- that you're working to find ways to manipulate the data set to match your position. Or you're just sloppy? Either way, you don't get to play all high and mighty about the right window when you're not even using it yourself.

But what happens when we use Dec-Feb?

Capture3.JPG


The 1970 through present day 3-month meteorological winter temperatures in Missouri unmistakably show a warming trend.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 1321: "Cold"

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:07 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Then why'd you use Jan-Feb here or Nov-March here?
The second link, mind you, has a shifted trendline, which he did a lot of.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests