It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

page: 1
92
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+73 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
OK, looks like I can unveil this... I have been hinting for quite some time about some information I had concerning Global Warming. I have been running an analysis as described below:

 


Methodology



Historical temperature data for the Huntsville, Alabama region was collected from the database at Weather Underground ( www.wunderground.com... ) and imported into a custom-designed spreadsheet to analyze temperature trends. Data was obtained from January 1, 1950 until present. Three temperature readings were considered for each daily entry: observed low temperature, observed average daily temperature, and observed high temperature.

During the data import, it was discovered that some data was missing, likely due to maintenance, repair, or relocation of recording stations over time. Mainly prior to 1960, this was sporadic missing daily entries; these entries were handled by adjusting the spreadsheet to ignore these days in averaging data. Later time periods uncovered missing months; these were handled by averaging the temperature readings of the previous 5 months and the subsequent 5 months. The months for which this occurred were December 1984, July 1985, January 1987, and April 2000. Such months were duly noted in the trending data.

Additional missing days were found around the month of April 2000, apparently due to a widepread corruption of the database.

Also, certain weather reporting stations had extended downtimes; in these cases, the closest adjacent station reporting during that time period was used instead, and the switch between stations was duly noted in the trending data entries as a comment.

The weather stations used were:
  • Redstone Army Airfield [KHUA] (34.68°N 86.68°,686 ft.) from January 1950 until July 1983
  • Pryor Field [KDCU] (34.65°N 86.95°, Elevation 591 ft.) from August 1983 until December 1993
  • Huntsville International Station [KHSV] (34.64° N 86.77° W, 630 ft.) from January 1994 until present


The missing daily data was the most troublesome as missing temperatures in the database were often represented by a zero instead of a null value. Each zero reading was therefore analyzed by human consideration and a determination was made as to whether or not the zero indicated an actual temperature reading or missing data to be entered in the spreadsheet as a null (missing) value. To determine this, several clues were considered. A zero in a typically warmer period, such as late spring or summer months, was treated as a null value. Zeroes during winter months were compared to other readings from that day; if all were zeroes, it was assumed this was indicative of missing data. If the zero reading correlated with the other observed temperatures, it was assumed to be an actual reading of zero and was entered thusly.

It is noted that care was taken to verify similar temperature readings when switching stations, and no obvious discrepancies in the data results were noticed corresponding to the changes and omissions noted above. All stations were within 20 miles of each other.

Data entered was used to maintain the record low and record high temperatures observed on each date. The year of the record was not recorded as it was considered superfluous for the analysis being conducted. Average daily temperatures were also taken for all three entries (low, average daily, and high) and maintained by the spreadsheet. While the typical average daily temperature is calculated using a Gaussian smoothing function, such mathematics were not employed. As expected, the resulting average temperatures showed a more coarsely irregular curve, but the differential was minor and negligible.

Annual graphs were produced by the spreadsheet showing actual observed temperatures along with record temperatures, and showing the deviations from average temperatures. These were then assembled into animated GIF images.

In addition, for each month, the daily average temperatures were then averaged over the number of days where information was available. The results were then averaged over the preceding 12 months to remove any seasonal deviations, and this resulting average annualized temperature was then plotted against time from December 1950 until present. Trend lines were included using both linear and 4th degree polynomial trends. The spreadsheet was stored after the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 to inspect the trend lines at each decade to see if a pattern was observed. It is noted that the absolute temperatures are irrelevant to the analysis; the trend itself is considered the important aspect of analysis.

Finally, since growing season length is a major aspect of climate, the dates of the last and first freezing (32 or below) temperature was recorded, and graphs were produced showing both the dates of the growing season (this was in the form of a bar graph with green bars instead of pink representing the growing season) and the length of the growing season in days (as a line graph).

 


Now for the results. I assembled the yearly deviations from average into an animated gif:

One can clearly see the difference in variation between winter and summer months, but it would be almost impossible to determine from this graphic whether or not the temperatures are rising, falling, or staying stationary. Plus, the average temperatures themselves are shifting with time, so this was essentially useless.

Next is the actual temperatures, again in an animated gif:

This one is a little better. The yearly sinusoidal waveform expected is clearly shown, but it is still almost impossible to get any real solid data form the graphic as to potential time changes in the climate. So here is the graph showing annualized temperature as mentioned in the methodology section:

Notice that the linear trend (red line) is showing an increase! That was surprising to me, but it is hard to argue with. Using linear extrapolation, we have been experiencing a very slight temperature rise since 1950. Using the blue line (the 4th degree polynomial trend), we are also experiencing a rise, but look where this line goes after 2018... it peaks and begins to slowly fall! This was somewhat unsurprising to me, as it simply indicates a natural cyclical behavior as is common in nature. In this case, a little extrapolation indicates a period of about 90 years. The trough is located around 1984, and the crest in the neighborhood of 2030 for a half period of 46 years.

Now, linear versus polynomial trending is nothing new or out of the ordinary. Nature rarely follows linear anything - 4th degree polynomial trends are typically more accurate. Based on this, I wondered... why is the polynomial trending being ignored? Then it hit me... I had data from 1950, whereas most studies I have seen tend to start in 1960. So I re-ran the graph from 1960 (December 1959 to be accurate). Here's what I got:

Notice these trend lines: the linear trend is noticeably steeper! The polynomial trend is steeper as well, and the peaks are not as readily apparent... indeed, had I started with this graph from 1960, I would likely have missed it. And that brings up another point...

~~~continued below~~~



+18 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
~~~continued from above~~~

As mentioned in the Methodology section, I saved this graph once every decade since 1970 in order to see how the different time periods would affect the trend lines. While the polynomial trend changed up and down, the linear trend line constantly showed a small decline until I hit the year 2000. It only showed any increase in 2000, 2010, and in the final graph at 2018. Based on the fact that the difference between the linear trend lines in the two graphs above is the period of the 1950s, it would be expected that a similar examination, based on removing the 1950s from consideration, would indicate either no change or slight warming from 1970 forward.

This is exactly what we have been told!

Now, I also ran some graphs of the growing season, as shown here:


While there is little trending shown, I did notice that the length if the growing season seemed to increase slightly during colder years! This was completely unexpected! However, it turns out that during years of cooler weather, the trend is for the winters to be a little milder while the summers are much milder, increasing the growing season. As I said, the difference is quite small and likely statistically irrelevant in this context, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 


Conclusions



The data indicates that we are indeed warming as has been claimed. However, the claims are minimized by including prior time periods, showing clearly that starting analysis in 1960 maximizes any obvious linear trends and camouflages polynomial trends. If this is corrected by extending the temperature record to 1950, not only is any linear trending minimized, but the polynomial trend indicates that while we are at present warming, we can expect to begin cooling in approximately ten more years with almost level temperature trends until then. The observed warming is likely simply a portion of a long-term sinusoidal variation which is quite likely natural. Any carbon dioxide based increase appears to be minuscule compared to this cycle.

The data also indicates that any variation in growing season resulting from varying temperature trends is further minimized. The amount of warmth experienced may well affect the speed of plant growth, but it has little effect on growing season length. Thus, it is reasonable to say that any temperature changes over time we have seen thus far have had little to no effect on the viability of the ecosystem.

Additional examination is warranted. I intend to conduct a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) analysis on the data collected to determine any periodic waveforms involved in the observed cycles. If warranted, a dynamic FFT analysis may also prove to be indicated, to examine if the observed variations are themselves changing with time. This will be implemented at some future time.

I am upgrading the dataset as new information comes available.

 


In closing, this is real, hard data analysis people. Now, you know what it looks like.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
~~~continued from above~~~

As mentioned in the Methodology section, I saved this graph once every decade since 1970 in order to see how the different time periods would affect the trend lines. While the polynomial trend changed up and down, the linear trend line constantly showed a small decline until I hit the year 2000. It only showed any increase in 2000, 2010, and in the final graph at 2018. Based on the fact that the difference between the linear trend lines in the two graphs above is the period of the 1950s, it would be expected that a similar examination, based on removing the 1950s from consideration, would indicate either no change or slight warming from 1970 forward.

This is exactly what we have been told!

Now, I also ran some graphs of the growing season, as shown here:


While there is little trending shown, I did notice that the length if the growing season seemed to increase slightly during colder years! This was completely unexpected! However, it turns out that during years of cooler weather, the trend is for the winters to be a little milder while the summers are much milder, increasing the growing season. As I said, the difference is quite small and likely statistically irrelevant in this context, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 


Conclusions



The data indicates that we are indeed warming as has been claimed. However, the claims are minimized by including prior time periods, showing clearly that starting analysis in 1960 maximizes any obvious linear trends and camouflages polynomial trends. If this is corrected by extending the temperature record to 1950, not only is any linear trending minimized, but the polynomial trend indicates that while we are at present warming, we can expect to begin cooling in approximately ten more years with almost level temperature trends until then. The observed warming is likely simply a portion of a long-term sinusoidal variation which is quite likely natural. Any carbon dioxide based increase appears to be minuscule compared to this cycle.

The data also indicates that any variation in growing season resulting from varying temperature trends is further minimized. The amount of warmth experienced may well affect the speed of plant growth, but it has little effect on growing season length. Thus, it is reasonable to say that any temperature changes over time we have seen thus far have had little to no effect on the viability of the ecosystem.

Additional examination is warranted. I intend to conduct a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) analysis on the data collected to determine any periodic waveforms involved in the observed cycles. If warranted, a dynamic FFT analysis may also prove to be indicated, to examine if the observed variations are themselves changing with time. This will be implemented at some future time.

I am upgrading the dataset as new information comes available.

 


In closing, this is real, hard data analysis people. Now, you know what it looks like.

TheRedneck


The TL;DR version of this is; no -- we aren't warming based on carbon.


+20 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

*applause*


Thank you. A well thought out, detailed analysis.

I, for one, appreciate the work that went into it.

Again, thank you.



This has spurred me to conduct a study of my own. We often hear about water levels rising and since I live on a coastal area, I can look at water levels here.


Thanks for making me think!



+9 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime


The TL;DR version of this is; no -- we aren't warming based on carbon.

I took the time to type it... and you can't take the time to read it?

Interesting.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SRPrime


The TL;DR version of this is; no -- we aren't warming based on carbon.

I took the time to type it... and you can't take the time to read it?

Interesting.

TheRedneck


I obviously did read it; I summarized it for those that do not have the time to.


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You are quite welcome.

The driving force for me was, I wanted to know. We see opinions and incomplete studies on here every day, but those are exactly what I just said... opinions and incomplete studies. By doing my own analysis, I not only discovered that the reports have a basis in (misunderstood) fact, but also I may be able to do some accurate predictions of my own now, when I complete the FFT analysis.

This is exactly what we need to bring ATS back to its glory days: actual on-hands research and analysis, as opposed to just links to what others have done. I look forward to your research!

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

OK, I misunderstood. Please forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Outstanding work Redneck!


It's there whether you believe it is natural cycle, manmade, or a mix of both.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
It's all good. It's a great write up too. I do have a question for you, however.

What is the source of the temperature measured in these weather stations? Are we analyzing solar temperature, surface temperature, or ambient temperature? Or is it an averaged temperature from all three heat sources?


originally posted by: ausername
Outstanding work Redneck!


It's there whether you believe it is natural cycle, manmade, or a mix of both.



Yes and no. According to the work in this thread, the trends predict cooling in the near future. So in other words, that means while yes -- we are warming slightly now, it's not the warming that most people expect.


BTW, S+F for the op. This is a great thread.
edit on 2-12-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

As I understand it, the source is ambient (air) temperature. Of course, one of the assumptions in the analysis is that the temperatures as reported are accurate, but that assumption would apply to any similar analysis, be it by me or by NASA.

There may be more information on the WeatherUnderground web site. You might also search for the stations used in the analysis; I provided identification as to the specific stations used.

Incidentally, what you are doing is called "peer review."


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Excellent! Excellent, kind sir! As I have told my granddaughters, math doesn't lie! Of course GIGO can occur but it seems you overcame that issue!

In the back of my mind, it would have been interesting to see the annual tilt of the earth's axis correlated to the yearly temperature totals. I think that would have to be presented in tenths or hundredths of a degree to clearly show a correlation. I personally do not know of any agency or entity recording that information.

All in all, this is what real investigative ventures are all about! Kudos to you!!



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NightFlight

That's an interesting thought... have you checked the astronomical sites for any data on angular tilt? There may be some hiding somewhere.

If you do find such data and want to compare it to mine, I'll be happy to make my spreadsheet available to you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Conclusions



The data indicates that we are indeed warming as has been claimed. However, the claims are minimized by including prior time periods, showing clearly that starting analysis in 1960 maximizes any obvious linear trends and camouflages polynomial trends. If this is corrected by extending the temperature record to 1950, not only is any linear trending minimized, but the polynomial trend indicates that while we are at present warming, we can expect to begin cooling in approximately ten more years with almost level temperature trends until then. The observed warming is likely simply a portion of a long-term sinusoidal variation which is quite likely natural. Any carbon dioxide based increase appears to be minuscule compared to this cycle.

The data also indicates that any variation in growing season resulting from varying temperature trends is further minimized. The amount of warmth experienced may well affect the speed of plant growth, but it has little effect on growing season length. Thus, it is reasonable to say that any temperature changes over time we have seen thus far have had little to no effect on the viability of the ecosystem.

Those conclusions only apply to Huntsville, Alabama, right?

PS: great thread!



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Cool,

Now, will anyone do anything besides multi-trillion dollar wealth transfers from the poor and middle class to the financial traders? That is the question.

Here are a few solutions:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Correct. I am also aware that local phenomena may concentrate any actual global climate trends in certain areas. However, I would expect some indication at almost every location.

I look at it this way: in our experience, the largest indicator of average temperature is longitude. Secondary to that would be ocean currents and physical obstacles such as mountain ranges. Those are not going to change with global carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, it only make sense that while some areas may be more prone to temperature deviations, over time all areas should see warming if the planet warms. I know of no mechanism outside magic which would account for other behavior.

If you would like to perform similar analysis on temperatures in other areas, I will gladly make my templates available on request.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I look at it this way: in our experience, the largest indicator of average temperature is longitude. Secondary to that would be ocean currents and physical obstacles such as mountain ranges. Those are not going to change with global carbon dioxide levels.

My doubt about the above is that for that to work the global carbon dioxide levels need to be uniform across the whole planet, and I doubt that happens, even in at the higher levels of the atmosphere, so local variations can make big differences.

A couple of days ago I heard the case of an area in the north of Portugal where they haven't had any noticeable difference in the climate, while the areas around have.

PS: I don't even have enough time to sleep, so I don't have the time to do this kind of analysis, although I would love to.



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Solutions, any solutions, are premature until one has identified a corresponding problem. My analysis indicates a ~90 year period cycle that accounts for any warming that we have been experiencing. That cycle effectively will mask any longer-term or linear changes unless we have a minimum of a full cycle of data. In this case, that would be 90 years worth of direct temperature observations, as opposed to the 69 years I have available. Perhaps we can get a better idea around 2040 or so.

Until we can determine there is an issue with carbon dioxide levels, any talk of solutions is moot. Solutions do no good unless they address a problem.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

If one area has experienced no change while the surrounding areas have, I would suggest that either readings are off or there is a major discrepancy in analysis methodology. I can think of no situation where surrounding an area with higher or lower temperatures will not cause a corresponding change to that area over time. Simple conduction would seem to dispute those observations.

Now, if there is some other natural mechanism at work, another possibility, I would suggest that needs to be determined and studied.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think this detailed post highlights the exact problem we have. Things are changing, but why? Our data set is so limited it's impossible to ascribe changes to any one particular reason. If it is cyclical we have not gone long enough to see the cycle.




top topics



 
92
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join