Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

Great work, my only issue with it is you are tackling "global warming" with a very local set of measurements. I would imagine other areas more prone to cold weather would show much more variation. For instance, even though I would agree with almost anyone that around Missouri it has been warmer since the 1980's in general that from say 1975 to 1982 it was much colder than normal and for longer.

Either way, thanks for taking the time to research your local situation in such detail.

Oh, and one other thought, did any of your weather stations change from rural to urban in the time between 1950 to now? Being near heat islands of concrete and asphalt do tend to change readings a few degrees in the warm direction during the daytime.

a reply to: narrator

Why should we believe this over the entire scientific community?

One simple reason: I published the entire work outside of a journal, for all to see. My methodology is there, my results are there, and my reasoning behind both is there, all open and in plain sight, using the exact same dataset that the other scientists use (well, a portion of it anyway). There is no problem with verifying or disputing my conclusions because nothing is hidden.

What we hear on here on a regular basis is not what the scientists say... it is the MSM interpretation of the scientists' interpretation of results based on methodology, with both hidden behind a paywall. I have trouble putting much faith in that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Fools

Great work, my only issue with it is you are tackling "global warming" with a very local set of measurements. I would imagine other areas more prone to cold weather would show much more variation.

That may be entirely possible... and I invite anyone to perform a similar analysis on their own locale to compare results. I will even make my spreadsheet available to anyone who asks.

TheRedneck

If I can still dispute Global warming in the face of an almost certain bias in the sensors themselves, that says a lot more for my position than if I could dispute it in the face of no bias.

Very true.

The thing is, to those of us (like yourself) who have obviously learned about stats, and how they are obtained, the raw data basically doesn't support even the most conservative predictions by the climate alarmist reports begun by Al Gore decades ago. And yet, this fallacy persists, constantly reinforced by the media, and treated as fact, when really, we're just not seeing these predictions come to light. (and even if we did, there's still no smoking gun indicator they'd be caused by the actions of man vs. nature).

That said, I'm all for truly greener solutions, cleaning up our seas, etc. I don't see how any rational human being can't be for these things. What I'm NOT for though, is unchecked regulation of our industries that puts 1000's out of a job, and makes energy costs skyrocket, when the global economy is already a delusion we keep reinforcing as being just fine.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm sorry but that thing is a joke. You have any idea how big the ocean is? Even if it's limited to the so-called garbage patches it would take hundreds of those things and it would be ongoing forever. And just a cool $30 million just to get it started!

Let me illustrate a simple thing that this kid seems to have overlooked. Real ocean waves in action.



5 minutes of this would blow away anything this thing of his has collected. The wave generator he used in his tests was lovely and mild but the real world doesn't work this way.

I get a bit tired of kids coming up with pointless things and the media and governments smiling and clapping and throwing our money at them. It's like a kid having a bake sale to help fix the budget deficit.

Why should we believe this over the entire scientific community? No offense at all, but I'm going to side with the 97% (or more) of scientists who say/show that global warming/climate change/whatever it's called nowadays is actually happening, and it's most likely that humans have a hand in it.

This.

This right here....is a classic example of just how successful the mainstream media has been in ramming this false narrative down folks' throats. This 97% consensus? Doesn't exist. The consensus that man had a hand it it? Also doesn't exist. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Read this article (or any that actually break down where this bogus claim originated)...and see for yourself. You've been had. Lied to.

www.forbes.com...

The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

The claim is largely based on a paper by John Cook, and any actual look into it, will see rather easily how he completely misrepresented the actual views even in the papers he included in his. Many of the scientists in the report took issue with it.

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

a reply to: Gazrok

That right there is the problem. Scientists must be believed at all costs, because it's science.

Firstly, not everyone who calls themselves a scientist has a firm grasp on science, just like not everyone who calls themselves an engineer has a good foundation in engineering practices (why does one need to remove the front cap of some cars to change a headlight?) or not every doctor has a good grasp on medicine (who hasn't met a glorified pill-pusher?).

Secondly, even good scientists get it wrong. Newton is a demi-god in science, but his Laws of Motion were overturned by Einstein. He was wrong in the strictest sense. Likewise, any scientist can be wrong and that's not a condemnation... simply a fact. The good ones (which I would think and hope are the vast majority) are stating their beliefs based on their interpretation of their results. They have a better track record than the general public, but they do get it wrong sometimes.

And finally, any unshakeable belief in anything is by definition not scientific. The second anyone says they believe something regardless of any future evidence to the contrary, or the second someone dismisses opposing information, they leave the realm of science. The very heart of all science is a search for truth, regardless of what that truth is. The very soul of science is examination of anything that challenges present thought.

What passes for science far too often, especially in the area of Global Warming, is more akin to religion than science. That's why I often refer to it as the Church of Global Warming. I am not saying Global Warming is false... I am saying the followers are being religious, not scientific.

TheRedneck

Great Job with the thread and data. So basically according to the date all this nonsense of global warming is nothing more then the part of the planet process of changing its pattern? just like how mars has the same warmings and cooling periods.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Until I get more data to disprove it, that's how I am calling it. A cyclical process.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Excellent work Redneck. I appreciate your rigor in looking at the data. Finally, we get some good research on the subject of climate trends vs weather. If all the so called AGW scientists were as careful in their analysis we would have some sanity on the subject. I look forward to your further studies. I agree with another poster, this is what ATS is about I have been here for years and it has gone downhill your work give me hope for the future of ATS.

Found some thing interesting.
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. "
from climate.gov.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good work. Of note, does anyone remember the research done some years back which showed temperature data for the past over 2,000 years and what the research showed was that the trend was one of cooling? I have one of the graphs. I posted a yellow baseline which shows where 0 is throughout the graph which more clearly showed the cooling trend.

Here is a link to the graph, I will try to dig the research paper.

a reply to: Gazrok

Cook who was the first to come up with the claim that 97% of the scientists agree and like most of the AGWers, loves to "cook the data," and that's what he did.

The AGW scientists throughout the years have been shown to falsify data, erase raw temp data, and made false claims which were later shown to be "fake news". But to this day the regular AGWers would swear that AGW is real, despite the evidence which has been posted for years and shows the contrary to their claims/belief.

a reply to: narrator

CO2 is not a pollutant, and it's in fact a building block for life on Earth. Over 99% of all life on Earth is carbon based. Without atmospheric CO2 life as we know it would have never existed on Earth. Yet here you are, like the other 100% of the AGWers claiming CO2 is a pollutant. That's how brainwashed people like yourself have become.

Claiming CO2 is a pollutant is the same as claiming oxygen is a pollutant. Just like CO2, too much oxygen is toxic for life. However, we are nowhere near to the levels of atmospheric CO2 that would be toxic for life, or bad for the environment.

As for the claim that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers?... That's yet another false claim. While CO2 is a ghg, it is less potent than water vapor, and it does not cause the warming claimed by the AWGers.

originally posted by: buddha
Found some thing interesting.
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. "
from climate.gov.

From 1898-1998 atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 71ppm, and temperatures increased by ~0.8C. Meanwhile from 1998-2016 temperatures have only increased by ~0.1C meanwhile atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 39ppm. If atmospheric CO2 was in fact the cause for the warming, then temperatures should have increased by a bit over 0.4C, but they haven't. 39ppm CO2 is more than half 71ppm.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

This shows that atmospheric CO2, and much less the smaller addition that is anthropogenic, are not the cause of the warming.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: buddha
Found some thing interesting.
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?
"Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. "
from climate.gov.

From 1898-1998 atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 71ppm, and temperatures increased by ~0.8C. Meanwhile from 1998-2016 temperatures have only increased by ~0.1C meanwhile atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 39ppm. If atmospheric CO2 was in fact the cause for the warming, then temperatures should have increased by a bit over 0.4C, but they haven't. 39ppm CO2 is more than half 71ppm.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

This shows that atmospheric CO2, and much less the smaller addition that is anthropogenic, are not the cause of the warming.

Chemtrails. But peak fossil fuel with cut the chemtrails out.

You wrote:
“I am willing, however, to attempt an exponential trend curve.”

When I suggested exponential or power trend curves, I hope it was clear that I was referring to whatever the underlying trend is, once the noise has been removed.

If you just step back and look at the data set without any preconceptions, it looks to me like there might be a long term trend (up, down, or neutral) but it is basically impossible to pick out that trend by eyeball, because there is so much noise on top of that signal. The trick, obviously, is to try to remove as much of that noise as possible, to make the underlying signal clearer.

The more I think about your approach, the more I think that a polynomial curve fit won’t do any of that, for several reasons. First of all, we might suspect that some of the apparent noise on the signal is actually periodic with—probably—a bunch of different frequencies. In fact we know for a fact that there is a large scale 12 month periodicity that corresponds to the passing of the seasons. Periodic variations are best modeled by sinusoids. Sinusoids have definite frequencies and, on a time average, have zero-mean amplitude. (In other words, over time, there will be as much of the sine wave below zero as above zero.) It strikes me that polynomials are a really lousy way to try to model sinusoids because polynomials don’t have any periodicity and they don’t necessarily have zero-mean amplitudes. With any polynomial, when you get further away from the origin, whatever the highest degree term is (a quartic, in your case), that term will eventually dominate all the other terms of lower degree, and the amplitude of the function will run off toward plus or minus infinity. That’s just intrinsic to polynomials.

The ideal way to analyze periodic fluctuations is (as someone has already suggested) to first perform an FFT on the data set and see what the power spectral distribution is. If you’re lucky, most of the noise power will be concentrated in a manageable number of frequencies. Knowing that, you could construct a filter to remove those frequencies from the data. Whatever remains could then be fit to various different curves, to see which one matches best.

Another point about polynomial functions: When you fit a polynomial (of whatever degree) to a time series data set, you are choosing the coefficients of the polynomial to minimize the errors between the polynomial values and the actual data values at every point in time within the span of your data set. Once you do that, you can use that polynomial as a basis function to interpolate, or estimate, the value of the data at some other point in time within your time span for which you don’t have actual data. And there is no problem with that. The problem arises when you attempt to use that basis function to extrapolate the value of the data at a point outside your original data set. That is what you’ve done; you’ve taken data from 1950 to 2018 and extrapolated it out to 2030. Polynomial extrapolation is known to be problematic. It is not necessarily the case that going to higher degree polynomials results in greater accuracy. In fact, it can lead to total instability (i.e., blowing up). This is related to a condition known as Runge’s phenomenon. Before you could have any confidence in your extrapolation, you would have to read up on this and show that your polynomial is well behaved outside the bounds of your data set.
a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gazrok

Why should we believe this over the entire scientific community? No offense at all, but I'm going to side with the 97% (or more) of scientists who say/show that global warming/climate change/whatever it's called nowadays is actually happening, and it's most likely that humans have a hand in it.

This.

This right here....is a classic example of just how successful the mainstream media has been in ramming this false narrative down folks' throats. This 97% consensus? Doesn't exist. The consensus that man had a hand it it? Also doesn't exist. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself. Read this article (or any that actually break down where this bogus claim originated)...and see for yourself. You've been had. Lied to.

www.forbes.com...

The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

The claim is largely based on a paper by John Cook, and any actual look into it, will see rather easily how he completely misrepresented the actual views even in the papers he included in his. Many of the scientists in the report took issue with it.

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

climate.nasa.gov...

www.yaleclimateconnections.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

I'll trust NASA, Yale, and Scientific American over some journalist I've never heard of.

The main point of contention with the 97% is that it's hard to specifically quantify, and some scientists/journalists take issue with that. The precise group of scientists can't be quantified, therefore, some people (such as those you mentioned) feel like the percentage doesn't exist because the exact group can't be pinned down. Regardless, a group of scientists was polled, and 97% of them said they believe in climate change, and that it's probably at least partly due to mankind.

Even Richard Tol, the main critic of the 97% number, who has challenged the paper on Capitol Hill, has been quoted as saying there's no doubt in his mind that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in regards to the existence of climate change.
He, the MAIN critic of the 97%, agrees with the results. He simply disagrees with the methodology used to reach the number.
I haven't been had. You're interpreting the results in a way that fits what you want to hear.

The main critic of the report agrees with the results of the report. That in and of itself "debunks" what the critics of the number are saying. They're arguing semantics, not the actual results.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: narrator

CO2 is not a pollutant, and it's in fact a building block for life on Earth. Over 99% of all life on Earth is carbon based. Without atmospheric CO2 life as we know it would have never existed on Earth. Yet here you are, like the other 100% of the AGWers claiming CO2 is a pollutant. That's how brainwashed people like yourself have become.

Claiming CO2 is a pollutant is the same as claiming oxygen is a pollutant. Just like CO2, too much oxygen is toxic for life. However, we are nowhere near to the levels of atmospheric CO2 that would be toxic for life, or bad for the environment.

As for the claim that CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGWers?... That's yet another false claim. While CO2 is a ghg, it is less potent than water vapor, and it does not cause the warming claimed by the AWGers.

Where did I say CO2 is a pollutant? I didn't.

I was simply using CO2 as an example, as it's the most commonly talked about greenhouse gas. I also never said that the amount in the atmosphere is toxic to life. However, it most definitely is a greenhouse gas, and it most definitely causes the temperature of the earth to rise when there is more of it (CO2) in the atmosphere compared to when there is less of it. Using the current rate of growth in atmospheric CO2, we're going to hit 500 ppm within 50 years. That's going to raise the global temperature approximately 3 degrees Celsius.

That isn't good. Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose use/presence could very easily be mitigated. So why not do something about it?

What is the harm in trying to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? True, honest harm. There isn't any. So why not do it?

This is what I don't understand about the "climate change is a hoax" crowd. There is no downside to cleaning up our act, relying less on fossil fuels, and joining literally every other country in the Paris Accord. Why fight it so hard? Even if it turns out that climate change isn't that big of a deal, only good would come from moving towards greener energy.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly.

This whole Climate change hysteria is yet another money grab - another revenue stream for douchebags like Al Gore.

I noticed you said "We aren't warming because of carbon" - That reminds me how Mr. "I should have been president, so I'm always correct" and others love to drag regular carbon into the picture. Carbon and CO2 are not the same, but it's the same old word association game that benefits hammering a message home by making us receptive and programmed.

We are most likely headed for another ice age, so I think we need all the heat we can, moving forward.