Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

a reply to: narrator

You fail to understand that "climate change" is not the same as "Anthropogenic Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change."

The climate changes constantly naturally. Heck I do believe in "Climate Change," but don't believe the hoax that is AGW/ACC...

Just because someone says "I believe in "climate change" does not equal to believing that "mankind causes climate change."

The fact that you don't understand the difference shows the level of brainwashing you have been subjected to. But don't worry, you are not the only one who doesn't understand the difference.

a reply to: Fools

I'm interested in anomolys, climate zones globaly micro climates.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

She doesn't know any of you are here.

originally posted by: narrator

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

That's what AGWers say... Now you are going to claim you believe some of what they say but don't believe their main argument that CO2 is a pollutant?...

originally posted by: narrator
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.

In the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface weather events occur, water vapor constitutes ~97% of the greenhouse effect, if not more.
In the Troposphere CO2 constitutes ~5% of the greenhouse effect.

originally posted by: narrator
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.

BS... No one knows when atmospheric levels of CO2 will reach to 500ppm. Tomorrow we could have several major volcanic eruptions that could increase atmospheric CO2 to over 500ppm, or it could never happen. As for your claim that an increase of 100ppm to the 400ppm of CO2 that exists now will increase temperatures by 3 celsius, that's false... If in the 20th century, and for 100 years CO2 levels increased by 100ppm and temperatures increased by ~0.8 C, how the heck is the next 100ppm of CO2 will increase temperatures by 3 celsius?...

Your claim is not only false, but in fact you leave out the "real fact" that of the 0.8 celsius that increased in the 20th century, the majority of it was increased by water vapor and not CO2.

Apart from that, the absorption of heat by CO2 is not linear. You would need a higher amount of CO2, a lot more than 100ppm, for CO2 to absorb the same amount of heat that was absorbed by the 100ppm that increased in the 20th century.

originally posted by: narrator
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 yet again shows you have no idea of what you talk about.

CO2 sequestration will cause a lack of CO2 for all plant life on Earth, which will provide less harvests/less food. Not to mention the fact that with less atmospheric CO2 plant life will need more water than it needs now. With a higher level of atmospheric CO2 plant life uses water more efficiently, leaving more potable water for humans and animals.

There are several downsides to CO2 sequestration. It will be worse for all life on Earth.

I hope you are right about ten years, but several prominent scientists are saying all of this has to do with solar activity. We are at a max right now, and should be having sunspots. We aren't. The sun has been changing. The sunspots heat the Tropisphere? They are not doing it right now. It is evidently cooling fast. Im seeing predictions that we will, over the next 2 years observe a phenomenon that has never been seen by anyone alive. Some are predicting a 35 degree drop all over the planet by 2020, and a mass exodus to the equator. My father ( Genius scientist, Medical background from Stanford University, ( plus 3-4 other colleges under his belt Microbiologist, engineer, director of research for a fortune 500 company, and even summoned to the White house by a Vice President for a meeting with the VP and Secretary of Ag.) concurs with the solar activity as the top cause of weather change, but believes the 36 degree drop is excessive. He still thinks it is going to drop substantially soon.
Food for thought

PS, I have enjoyed your thread. I love information. You have been thorough

a reply to: visitedbythem

There are "predictions" that the sun will go into another maunder minimum type event which will cause another "Little Ice Age."

Ed Dames still says that the sun will send what he calls "the kill shot."

But no one knows with 100% certainty exactly what will happen.

However, the Solar System is receiving more cosmic rays, especially x-rays, from a source close to us which hasn't been identified. If the trend continues, who knows what it will do to the sun and the planets in the Solar System. Maybe Ed Dames is right. Maybe this increase in cosmic rays will cause the sun to go into a maunder minimum for longer than it was during the LIA.

We will see what happens.

originally posted by: i77oomiknotti
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

She doesn't know any of you are here.

I have no idea what, or whom you are talking about.

I realize you are using weatherunderground for a reason, however if others want to look into the trends in their local area that information is available on the NOAA site. I think I may just do the same analysis you have done for my area as well
link for search and download of your local area weather history... some going back much further than 1950.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Justoneman

I would point out the coordinates listed are all near Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville AL and reflect a small window of the regional data. But your observations convincingly depict a need to review the hourly data averages for quality.

Yes, the area around Redstone Arsenal was the earliest data that was available. The first official temperature reading I could find in this general area was January 1, 1950.

I had not considered power outages; that is a good explanation for the missing individual readings. The longer periods of missing data I attributed to sensor failure... it can take time to get a sensor replaced. Where I had to actually change sensors was likely due to construction that moved the sensor (or simply removed it). The one period in 2000, however, seemed to be the result of a widespread database corruption. While I was searching for alternate sites in the vicinity, I mistakenly typoed the code name and wound up with data from Washington DC, and it showed the same inconsistencies.

TheRedneck

In my experience Temperature sensors are near foolproof. The anemometer used for wind speed is likely to go bad since it is a moving object with friction eventually wearing out the mechanism. Very likely virtually all of the missing data will be from power failure for the Temp sensors.

originally posted by: narrator
Please don't take this as a critique on you or your work, you clearly put a lot of time into this and I commend you for it.

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.

Simply this statement you are repeating from MSM and the UN's IPCC has been proven to be a total lie.

It is more honestly stated that we who are actually monitoring the data disagree with the IPCC data being accurate and therefore most of us say NO to man significantly altering the atmosphere with CO2. We who are concerned are not being allowed into the debate on MSM either so that you would know.

Freon, I would say was an issue in the past but the poisoning of the water is our biggest issue and we only hurt our drinking water and the wonderful wildlife. Earth will recycle the poison and wildlife will rebound.

originally posted by: Gazrok

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.

Exactly right in my professional and personal opinion.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I hope you are right about ten years, but several prominent scientists are saying all of this has to do with solar activity. We are at a max right now, and should be having sunspots. We aren't. The sun has been changing. The sunspots heat the Tropisphere? They are not doing it right now. It is evidently cooling fast. Im seeing predictions that we will, over the next 2 years observe a phenomenon that has never been seen by anyone alive. Some are predicting a 35 degree drop all over the planet by 2020, and a mass exodus to the equator. My father ( Genius scientist, Medical background from Stanford University, ( plus 3-4 other colleges under his belt Microbiologist, engineer, director of research for a fortune 500 company, and even summoned to the White house by a Vice President for a meeting with the VP and Secretary of Ag.) concurs with the solar activity as the top cause of weather change, but believes the 36 degree drop is excessive. He still thinks it is going to drop substantially soon.
Food for thought

PS, I have enjoyed your thread. I love information. You have been thorough

In my circle of nerds we have been following the concept that Solar minimums with cooling periods of significance as from recorded in history of the event. Final conclusion basically all agree upon, we should not ignore that fact.

Some of the fresh out of college types are not on board at 1st being so close to absolute brainwashing in this matter. Yet even fighting the idea every step of the way, they are getting it. We have had the same debates as we have here on ATS with reliable references being provided since none will accept any less. Only a very few can continue to cling to the data that has been proven to be tainted with falsification after that.

a reply to: 1947boomer

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.

Yes, that is essentially what I said.

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.

Agreed. I don't think I worded it as well, perhaps, but agreed.

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.

That would be me who suggested FFT analysis, and more (dynamic FFT), as early as the OP. The polynomial trend curve was used because that was the closest to sinusoidal I had access to at the time. As soon as I get well enough to get to my main computer, I can run the FFT analysis and go from there (still recovering from bypass surgery, you know... that's why I had enough time to develop the spreadsheet and enter the data). I need direct access to do that, and all I have at the moment is remote access.

There may not need to be any filters on the data, however. Random noise will show up in the FFT spectrum as white noise (or at least 'pink' noise, limited bandwidth) and will be easily dismissable on sight, as i am sure you know.

Nice to see you've come around to what I said originally.

TheRedneck

a reply to: narrator

He, the MAIN critic of the 97%, agrees with the results. He simply disagrees with the methodology used to reach the number.

If one disagrees with the methodology, one must, if one is to remain 'scientific,' dismiss the results. To do otherwise is more akin to religion than science.

I believe you misinterpret his statements.

TheRedneck

a reply to: narrator

I was simply using CO2 as an example, as it's the most commonly talked about greenhouse gas.

Yes, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas."

Do you understand what makes it a "greenhouse gas"?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: 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

It has already been done with 5000+ sensors globally in meta analysis, shows a greater increase in temps. 90% of warming has occured in the sea with roughly 160 extra zetajoules.

Still a good OP on proper research and mathematics but not reflective of global temperature change. Very interested in how an FFT will affect the result.

a reply to: visitedbythem

I hope you are right about ten years, but several prominent scientists are saying all of this has to do with solar activity.

And they may be right. 1947boomer has some good points above about the efficacy of using polynomial curves for predictive analysis... the reason I have said so many times that my interpretation of the period of 90 years is nothing more than a guess. I do see a partial sinusoidal wave overall, but I cannot be sure of the period at this time. In other words, we could be peaking now, or we could peak in 50 years... further analysis should narrow that down.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dubiousatworst

I would love to see your results! Please do!

TheRedneck

a reply to: bastion

It has already been done with 5000+ sensors globally in meta analysis, shows a greater increase in temps. 90% of warming has occured in the sea with roughly 160 extra zetajoules.

I cannot be sure of that. I do not have access to the methodology used, the raw data, or even a complete set of results. What I have access to are the conclusions of scientists (interpretations of results) and the opinions of the MSM (opinions of interpretations of results). One major point of this thread is to point out the differences between those.

Still a good OP on proper research and mathematics but not reflective of global temperature change.

Thank you! Still waiting for someone to let me know they are going to repeat my analysis in a different location...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wow,now that was a interesting read!
Thanks for the infor.