Come on dude at least NOAA are trained scientists while the people at the Global Warming Foundation are a quaint mixture of mineral industry types and climate warming deniers. Not a lot of neutral parties coming up with validated data.
We stopped warming by limiting freon? Are you kidding me? is that what your are arguing? Are there really asshole scientists with real degrees making up such stupid arguments? They should be stripped of their credentials and degrees. --- Being that the definition of forcing is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate forcing as âAn externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth climate system, e.g. through changes in solar radiation, changes in the Earth albedo, or changes in atmospheric gases and aerosol particles.â Thus climate forcing is a âchangeâ in the status quo. IPCC takes the pre-industrial era (arbitrarily chosen as the year 1750) as the baseline. The perturbation to direct climate forcing (also termed âradiative forcingâ) that has the largest magnitude and the least scientific uncertainty is the forcing related to changes in long-lived and well mixed greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halogenated compounds (mainly CFCs). http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Forcing is not a change in temperature... ----- Do scientists really think limiting freon can be correlated to temperature in a environment where CO2 levels went up and arguable temperatures did not? Perhaps we can stop warming by charcoal activated underwear? You would have to argue what? the earth could handle the increase in CO2 levels we did see, but, it could not have handled the extra freon? Are you fricken kidding me? I do not even get where people dream up some stupid shit but in a fraud lab? CO2 Up Temperature last decade flat Freon and some other gases limited.. therefore argue that limiting freon worked? In fact it worked so well it is incredible. One little treaty and we fixed global warming? Any scientist who made statement about warming based on 10 years of data should have his credentials and degrees stripped.
Sounds scratchy. I'm not going to do it! I think you guys can just ignore 3foil. To say his arguments are flawed is just being polite, they are actually whimsical. Anyone, such as 3foil, who believes in man made global warming but not in God has a serious problem with the logical thought process. I can't imagine that helps him with his trading.
Obviously you didn't actually look at any of that didja? NOT that it stopped warming, obviously, it didn't. ONLY that it slowed it down. The rest is just spouting off. Like I said, it's a complete waste of time posting actual, validated evidence in these debates.
For the two people interested in actual facts rather than garbage put out by people who's interests are obviously aligned with not seeing what's right in front of their nose, temperature data in the raw can be retrieved in this text file from the Goddard Institute. This is the file I remember using way back when. Obviously it needs a lot of work to make it useful in debates like this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt Fortunately, someone did the work and converted the indexes posted in that link to celsius temperatures, which can be downloaded from this page in Excel format. You'll want to scroll down and look for Average Global Temperature, 1880 - 2010: http://www.earth-policy.org/data_center/C23 Finally, a quick graph of the 2nd derivative of the rate of change of global temperatures averaged over 10 years starting in 1979, when the AGGI data starts, shows a sharp drop which coincides with the start of the Montreal Protocol, but then a sharp snapback, so it would appear that the effect of halting the production of CFCs has already been overwhelmed by the continuing rise in CO2. Like I said, I last looked at this ages and ages ago, so at that time the 2nd derivative was probably in that trough. But that's long over with now. So, no, CFCs are no longer having the effect I remember, I was wrong about that. We're back on the treadmill already: Of course, what this shows is that even the 2nd derivative of the rate of change is increasing over the past 10 years, so for some outfit to claim that global temperatures have been flat over the past decade is laughable in the extreme. Only a self-interested fool would believe nonsense like that.
The Climategate e-mails point out data manipulation and concealment by global warming hacks. So, you can put out all the leftist data you want. The fact that Chicago hasn't seen triple digit temperatures in 6+ years suggests that global warming is a really hard sell.
OK, second derivative is acceleration. "2nd derivative of the rate of change" means third derivative of temperature which makes no sense for me. Concerning the temperatures themselselves, there is pretty important notiice in the xls file: "Note: The margin of error for these data is 0.05 °C; as such, it is impossible to distinguish between the years 2005 and 2010 on a statistical level" So you are calculating the speed and acceleration of the temperature that was statistically unchanged during at five years of 30
1. 1st derivative = rate of change, you know, this year is .2 degrees warmer/cooler than last year. 2nd derivative = rate of change of the rate of change, i.e. whether that .2 is higher or lower than the previous year's rate of change. Not sure why you think we'd be getting into third derivatives at all. As for the margin of error... 2. ...the graph shown is of a 10 year moving average. MAs are, as we all know, lagging indicators. But in this case it's useful precisely because of the mentioned error margin. That error would be on either side of the figure, but the likelihood that over 10 years all of the errors would be to only one side is pretty low. The fact this average of the 2nd derivative's values dipped so sharply shortly after the Montreal protocol went into effect, when the AGGI's upward march slowed significantly according to the raw data, is pretty indicative of the usefulness of smoothing this out over 10 years. Petsamo: your tactic of taking thin slices of data from a tiny fraction of the globe (Chicago? Since when is a sample of one statistically significant?) to try to disprove the theory is the usual one. One hopes you backtest your trading system with more than just a single data point, although if you don't that's fine; someone has to fund the market, after all.
Because of your words: 1st derivative is rate of change, so second derivative of the rate of change is third derivative. 1 + 2 = 3. If you can you show that changes in temperature are statistically valid (using t-test fo example) than calculation of derivatives makes sense otherwise it is a nonsense from statistical point of view