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.
I agree that attributing specific weather events to global warming is problematic.
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.
Have you reviewed the data and code?
No reason to doubt the data, it seems to be from the NCDC dataset? www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
So you dispute my conjecture, but not my results. Is that correct?
So much data. So little time.
I doubt Excel could handle the dataset they have, though. It is barely handling mine.
No reason to doubt the data, it seems to be from the NCDC dataset?
No. I agree that the data shows that Huntsville is experiencing a warming trend.
Do you dispute my results?
Yes. And I think that a prediction based on a 50% curve fit of a limited dataset is...questionable. Particularly so when it is implied (or explicitly claimed by a headline) that it applies to a global scale.
Do you know the difference between data, methodology, results, and predictions?
No. I agree that the data shows that Huntsville is experiencing a warming trend.
I contend that the time span of the data and a 50% fit to a polynomial regression does not warrant said conclusion regarding any long term cycle.
The overall trend of the results show a long-term periodic cycle during the period studied.
Okay.
Growing season as defined is not dependent on temperatures within the range shown.
Which analysis, has indeed, been done by various entities. Analysis which includes instrumental and observational biases.
There appears to be a substantial amount of noise which lowers confidence in the period and amplitude of the long-term periodic cycle and requires additional analysis.
Thank you for the clarification.
Because I have so little confidence in that prediction, I am not going to waste time with you trying to debate it.
The conclusions are up for debate. Do you agree or disagree with my conclusions?
I contend that the time span of the data and a 50% fit to a polynomial regression does not warrant said conclusion.
Is that the point of this thread?
You have repeatedly asked and I have repeatedly answered.
It is becoming evident you do not understand the differences between the various parts of an analysis.
No. The regression analysis is insufficient for such a conclusion. (48% ? Really?)
Now, ignoring the prediction for the moment, do you agree the trend indicates a periodic cycle?
No. It is those who rallied behind what you claimed who have failed, not I.
The point was to show how to actually conduct an analysis. I see with you I have failed miserably.
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.
You have repeatedly asked and I have repeatedly answered.
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present,
Why bother?