Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ManFromEurope

The Chinese think otherwise because what is proposed hurts the US and Europe and helps China. Tell China they need to follow the same rules and have the exact same carbon output as Europe and see how quick they laugh in your face.

What's in it is not destroying our economy to help China.

climateactiontracker.org...

That is like the worst possible website for the USA in this context.

China itself had /still has massive smog-problems in their cities, and the programs to start ev-cars, remove emission-intense industries (or move them at least away from cities) and so on are a part of Jinpings intent to stay president, because there is a growing economical middle class in China, and being an autocrat means that you have to listen to your peoples complains, otherwised you are not much longer the autocrat.

Jinping is a much wiser person in this than other presidents.

a reply to: face23785

Alex Epstein?

You mean the author of "Moral Case for Fossil Fuels"?
You mean the person who cites Ayn Rand as his greatest influence?
You mean that man who has a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy?
The founder of the Center for Industrial Progress?

Yep, that must be a completely neutral, unbiased person in this.

Thanks for the info. Hope you don't get suicided or go poof into the night!


I'm also curious as to what the Farmer's Almanac says. I bet it would say the same. I understand that we go through cycles within cycles within cycles. That's what I would hear from my much older Aunts and Uncles. I can see that myself by how many times it's snowed and how far apart in places that it just doesn't snow in.


Thanks again!

a reply to: StallionDuck

Nah, I'm pretty safe here. I live so far out in the boonies that even GPS can't seem to find me... and someone would have to go through several miles of heavily-infested redneck country anyway. Once anyone got to me, they have to deal with a crazy trigger-happy redneck sitting at the base of a rattlesnake-infested mountain he knows like the back of his hand.

Things work different out here.

TheRedneck

Two points (take that as you will).

1) Huntsville is not the planet.
2) Your polynomial regression is based on two values; average temperature (in Huntsville) and time.

And some questions.
1) What is the R-squared value for your polynomial fit?
2) Do you think that there may be factors other than time which affect average temperatures?
3) Considering the limited time span and number of variables (2) which your data covers, what reason is there to conclude that the polynomial is predictive?
4) Why does your title specify "Global?"

a reply to: Phage

1) Huntsville is not the planet.

No, but considering the carbon dioxide levels are claimed to be similar across the globe, and considering that the claim is also that carbon dioxide is directly responsible for a warming trend, it only follows that there should be a definite warming trend in most locations.

If there is not, then the extrapolation of that is that there will be spots on the planet that are freezing cold where the rest of the planet is burning hot. I have yet to see a mechanism that can explain such a phenomenon.

2) Your polynomial regression is based on two values; average temperature (in Huntsville) and time.

Yes, it is an analysis of temperature versus time. What other metric should I have considered? The average price of beans in Beijing?

I see nothing in Global Warming reports that include other metrics.

1) What is the R-squared value for your polynomial fit?

Ask Excel.

As was previously stated multiple times, the predictive part of my analysis is conjecture at this point. I will run an FFT analysis as well, which does not rely on statistical variance, but rather on actual cyclical frequencies contained in the data.

2) Do you think that there may be factors other than time which affect average temperatures?

Yes. Do you?

3) Considering the limited time span and number of variables (2) which your data covers, what reason is there to conclude that the polynomial is predictive?

What reason is there to make the same assumption with Global Warming theory?

4) Why does your title specify "Global?"

You can thank Al Gore for that. He coined the term.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ask Excel.

You have the workbook. Way easy.

Yes. Do you?

Yes.

What reason is there to make the same assumption with Global Warming theory?

What assumption? In any case, the models used for predicting warming are based on more than two values.

You can thank Al Gore for that. He coined the term.

I think you are mistaken with that claim, however my point was more along the lines that a more accurate title would have been "Real Numbers for Huntsville Warming."


You answered two of my questions.
Sort of.

a reply to: Phage

You have the workbook. Way easy.

You're welcome to a copy. I don't keep my methodology private.

Yes.

Care to elucidate?

What assumption? In any case, the models used for predicting warming are based on more than two values.

I used no models. I simply attempted to recreate their predictions based on actual data.

I think you are mistaken with that claim, however my point was more along the lines that a more accurate title would have been "Real Numbers for Huntsville Warming."

There is no scientific theory that has or has had the working title of "Huntsville Warming." At least not that I have heard of. Do you know of any?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You're welcome to a copy. I don't keep my methodology private.

All would take is a couple of clicks for you to produce the value. But if you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

Care to elucidate?

Short list, radiative forcing.

I used no models.

I know. You used Excel.

I simply attempted to recreate their predictions based on actual data.

Two values. Predictions for Huntsville?

There is no scientific theory that has or has had the working title of "Huntsville Warming."

And yet, you have shown that Huntsville is warming.

a reply to: Phage

All would take is a couple of clicks for you to produce the value. But if you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

0.486. The equation is y = -8E-11x4 + 1E-07x3 - 7E-05x2 + 0.005x + 61.44.

And none of that is important because the final predictive analysis will be done using FFT analysis.

Short list, radiative forcing.

Are you saying that radiative forcing is not increasing with time?

I know. You used Excel.

Do you have something against Excel?

The FFT analysis will be done using MatLab. Do you have an issue with that?

I use whatever is needed for analysis. In this case, my objective was to determine if the planet, based on the data from Huntsville, showed a warming trend. All I needed was Excel to do that. As an example, if I need to simulate a circuit function, I use MultiSim most of the time. I could program the component parameters and connections into MatLab and do the same thing, but it would be a waste of time. MultiSim can do the same thing most of the time and do it faster. If I need to produce a schematic drawing, I use either AutoCAD LT or MultiSim... there's no need to use SolidWorks every time.

Two values.

Again, what other metric is needed to show whether or not warming trends are occurring in line with predictions?

And yet, you have shown that Huntsville is warming, as opposed to the globe.

Is Huntsville part of the globe?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

0.486

So, that would seem to be a "meh" fit. Predictive reliability? Meh.

Are you saying that radiative forcing is not increasing with time?

Quite the contrary, there is every indication that it is. As well as a mechanism for it doing so.

Do you have something against Excel?

Hell no. Except when it does what I tell it to rather than what I want it to.

Is Huntsville part of the globe?

Yes. But then, so is the Arctic.

a reply to: Phage

So, that would seem to be a "meh" fit. Predictive reliability? Meh.

And still simply conjecture. You do know what conjecture is?

Quite the contrary, there is every indication that it is. As well as a mechanism for it doing so.

So what, then, is the difference if one axis shows dates or radiative forcing levels?

There are only two axes on a 2-dimensional graph. You seem to want me to add a dimension. How about just stating which metric you think I am missing?

Hell no. Except when it does what I tell it to rather than what I want it to.

Perhaps you should learn to tell it what you want, then. It's not that difficult an app to master.

Yes. But then, so is the Arctic.

So is the Sahara Desert.

If the planet is warming, and Huntsville is part of the planet, it follows that Huntsville is warming. Until you prove there is a mechanism that is preventing that, anyway. Care to do so?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You do know what conjecture is?

Yes.

So what, then, is the difference if one axis shows dates or radiative forcing levels?

I don't know. Please chart those axes for Huntsville.

There are only two axes on a 2-dimensional graph. You seem to want me to add a dimension. How about just stating which metric you think I am missing?

No. I'm saying that a 50% polynomial fit (I'm feeling generous) of temperatures in Huntsville, over a very limited time series, should not be considered predictive of future trends for the planet.

If the planet is warming, and Huntsville is part of the planet, it follows that Huntsville is warming.

Depends on other factors when applied to a specific locale. The data you present does show a warming trend. However, there is no reason to expect your locale to follow the warming trend of either the Arctic or the global average.

a reply to: Phage

I don't know. Please chart those axes for Huntsville.

Excuse me? When did I become your employee?

If you want an analysis ran for something other than what I presented, it is your responsibility to do so. I ran an analysis of temperature trends over time. You apparently want an analysis of temperature versus radiative forcing. Fine. Run one and publish the results. Do not expect me to just drop everything else and run your request.

If you wish to hire me, send me a PM and I will give you my contact info. I will consider any long-term offer above $75K with benefits. Short-term contract work begins at $150 an hour.

No. I'm saying that a 50% polynomial fit (I'm feeling generous) of temperatures in Huntsville, over a very limited time series, should not be considered predictive of future trends for the planet.

I agree.

Perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with meaning of conjecture. It seems you do not understand it's meaning as well as you think you do.

Depends on other factors when applied to a specific locale. The data you present does show a warming trend. However, there is no reason to expect your locale to follow the warming trend of either the Arctic or the global average.

Very true. A warming trend in any other location may show a different time gradient. I would expect it to show a warming trend, however, if the planet is indeed warming.

There is a very simple way to prove or disprove the above assumption: just conduct your own analysis of your location (or any other you choose). We can then compare the two and get a clearer picture of whether or not warming is occurring and if so, to what extent and with what function. I will be happy to make my templates available to you and will even run an FFT analysis on the data you collect once I have ran one on my data (since I will have the program written at that time anyway) as a freebie. I just can't be your personal data analyst for free.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I can work Excel, thanks. But the trend lines are readily available.

I just can't be your personal data analyst for free.

You mean you expect to be paid for your analysis? How can it be trusted?

a reply to: Phage

I can work Excel, thanks. But the trend lines are readily available.

If you are referring to the various climate studies, yes they are. However, I do not have their methodology, their data, nor even their complete results. All I have is their conclusions, as the rest is behind paywalls. In most cases, all I have is opinions of their conclusions. The conclusions are the least important part of any analysis. Opinions on conclusions are not even relevant in the least without all of the information.

You mean you expect to be paid for your analysis? How can it be trusted?

Yep. So does every scientist out there. Surprise!

(Yes, I know that was a facetious statement.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

However, I do not have their methodology, their data, nor even their complete results.

For lack of looking, perhaps.

Data (raw and processed) with code. Readily available.
berkeleyearth.org...
Go for it.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Phage

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

Seems your link agrees with me. I got similar results from just an analysis of Huntsville. Does that prove Huntsville is part of planet Earth?

I also agree with his statements about consequences being overblown.

So, are you disputing his results too? You seem to be quite dissatisfied with mine, and we both got very similar results.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I also agree with his statements about consequences being overblown.

I agree that attributing specific weather events to global warming is problematic.

So, are you disputing his results too? You seem to be quite dissatisfied with mine, and we both got very similar results.

Your results indicate that Huntsville has warmed. It is your projections which I find problematic because they are based solely on a single location and only two variables.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

www.nytimes.com...

Have you reviewed the data and code?