Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation

[Billy_Bob]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new essay that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning essay..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The closing is hilarious.....

"So if you’ve ever, in the course of a heated argument, thrown graphs in someone’s face believing that the visuals speak for themselves and that the data is on your side, know this: You’re wrong. The data isn’t on your side. The data is never on your side. At best, the data might simply be not against your side. But data by itself isn’t on anyone’s side. At best, you maybe aren’t the data’s enemy. But never believe that the data is your friend. Data has no friends."

Excellent read... Statistical analysis by one of the best in the field..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Your quite right... It's and essay on randoms... and well done too.. But the outcome remains the same..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Your quite right... It's and essay on randoms... and well done too.. But the outcome remains the same..

Actually, the outcome has not been determined, as his article has not been peer-reviewed or analyzed. His tactic is not new, you know. I want you to remember this premature post by you. We'll revisit it in the months ahead.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Your quite right... It's and essay on randoms... and well done too.. But the outcome remains the same..

Actually, the outcome has not been determined, as his article has not been peer-reviewed or analyzed. His tactic is not new, you know. I want you to remember this premature post by you. We'll revisit it in the months ahead.

SO?

Disprove his analysis. I dare you...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...

You cannot call his analysis 'dead on", because you know less than nothing about this topic, or about the mathematical methods he used. What a joke. As if you have any understanding whatsoever about any of it.

But that's okay, because blog-educated fools will not be the ones peer-reviewing his work or analyzing it. Actually, let's be honest: nobody is ever going to do that, because this guy is never, not ever, going to try to publish this paper. he wants to maintain his credibility in his actual fields of focus. That is why he chose Faceboook as his outlet, and not a scientific journal, or a university publication.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What is hilarious to me, are the efforts some will go to, to discredit someone who totally disassembles the CAGW narrative from a statistical stand point.

And yet without reading the essay or looking into the data and methods, makes a wild ass assumption based on nothing.. The author used no less than five different methods to show how wrong the CAGW meme is..

Empirically and Statistically the CAGW Hypothesis has been shown false, in just one week... And the hits just keep on coming...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...

You cannot call his analysis 'dead on", because you know less than nothing about this topic, or about the mathematical methods he used. What a joke. As if you have any understanding whatsoever about any of it.

But that's okay, because blog-educated fools will not be the ones peer-reviewing his work or analyzing it. Actually, let's be honest: nobody is ever going to do that, because this guy is never, not ever, going to try to publish this paper. he wants to maintain his credibility in his actual fields of focus. That is why he chose Faceboook as his outlet, and not a scientific journal, or a university publication.

You don't have a damn clue as to what I do or do not know.

Its funny that Blogs are now the key way scientists share their writings and get constructive argument. Peer review as you think it should be done is dead, because PAL review is nothing more than political bull shit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is hilarious to me, are the efforts some will go to, to discredit someone who totally disassembles the CAGW narrative from a statistical stand point.

And yet without reading the essay or looking into the data and methods, makes a wild ass assumption based on nothing.. The author used no less than five different methods to show how wrong the CAGW meme is..

Empirically and Statistically the CAGW Hypothesis has been shown false, in just one week... And the hits just keep on coming...

Inappropriate, irrelevant, crybaby little rant. I didn't discredit the blogger, I said you are a fool to declare victory, when this article has not been subjected to the same process the 10s of 1000s of other scientific articles on this topic have had to endure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...

You cannot call his analysis 'dead on", because you know less than nothing about this topic, or about the mathematical methods he used. What a joke. As if you have any understanding whatsoever about any of it.

But that's okay, because blog-educated fools will not be the ones peer-reviewing his work or analyzing it. Actually, let's be honest: nobody is ever going to do that, because this guy is never, not ever, going to try to publish this paper. he wants to maintain his credibility in his actual fields of focus. That is why he chose Faceboook as his outlet, and not a scientific journal, or a university publication.

You don't have a damn clue as to what I do or do not know.

Its funny that Blogs are now the key way scientists share their writings and get constructive argument. Peer review as you think it should be done is dead, because PAL review is nothing more than political bull shit.

I've read your posts. You have not a clue what this person's methods are, much less if this is valid treatment of the data. You have no expertise or education in this field, and you spend your time googling for agreeable headlines to articles you generally do not even read and definitely do not understand. No, you are not presenting any real challenge to acvepted theories. Neither is the blogger in question. Actual challenges to accepted theories involve mountains of published research and evidence. These things do not exist, nor will you be generating any.

 

[Old Rocks]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...

You cannot call his analysis 'dead on", because you know less than nothing about this topic, or about the mathematical methods he used. What a joke. As if you have any understanding whatsoever about any of it.

But that's okay, because blog-educated fools will not be the ones peer-reviewing his work or analyzing it. Actually, let's be honest: nobody is ever going to do that, because this guy is never, not ever, going to try to publish this paper. he wants to maintain his credibility in his actual fields of focus. That is why he chose Faceboook as his outlet, and not a scientific journal, or a university publication.

You don't have a damn clue as to what I do or do not know.

Its funny that Blogs are now the key way scientists share their writings and get constructive argument. Peer review as you think it should be done is dead, because PAL review is nothing more than political bull shit.

LOL Given you past prognostications on the El Nino of 2016, we know you don't know very much at all. Given the rest of your posts, apparently you really know less than that.

 

[mamooth]

The rather obvious flaws:

1. Climate is not a random walk.

2. Stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands have moved in one direction along with the temperature. Random walk theory fails to explain that. Global warming theory explains it perfectly.

 

[skookerasbil]

The rather obvious flaws:

1. Climate is not a random walk.

2. Stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands have moved in one direction along with the temperature. Random walk theory fails to explain that. Global warming theory explains it perfectly.

Well take another bow on that one s0n..........in the real world, nobody is caring.

Global warming theory is but a symbol. Like the idiots kneeling at the NFL games. Where's the action supporting the symbol?? The answer is..........its absent in the real world. Spiking the football for symbols is ghey. Nobody is caring about the kneeling.........nobody is caring abut the science. Oh.....and nobody is caring about gun control either. Another symbolic talking point............feel good shit that has no impact in the real world - lOsInG.

But you guys take your bows..............

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature - All warming is Natural Variation.

Now this is one new paper that is going to send the left wing CAGW nutters into a tail spin. When all warming and cooling is place in a random walk analysis it all falls within the 1 sigma bounds of Natural Variation.

No hint of mans influence is seen.... This is a stunning paper..

What my study does address is to ask, even given the NOAA’s own year-over-year numbers: Do those numbers actually represent an upward trend at all? To this end, I test the NOAA’s temperature records against a Random Walk Hypothesis, a principle used in technical analysis of stocks to determine whether or not a trend (either upwards or downwards) exists.

Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’

It's not a "stunning paper". It's a Facebook post. Let his mathematical analysis -- which is contradicted by already published papers using, ostensibly, the same method -- be subjected to peer review and analysis before declaring victory. You guys really need to learn this lesson.

And by "peer review" you mean people paid to believe in "Manmade global climate warming change" or whatever you call it today, right?

 

[IanC]

The Earth is in an era that flips between two attractor points, glacials and interglacials. A quick melt followed by a slow freeze.

CO2 has been a decent proxy for these changes, albeit with a time lag that follows the temperature change. Temperatures start to rise even though CO2 is low, start to drop even though CO2 is high. CO2 is not the cause but it does enhance the changes caused by other natural factors.

Industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels has decoupled CO2 concentration from natural levels. It is no longer a decent proxy for temperature because it is no longer controlled by natural factors. While some warming influence is to be expected for the increased CO2, it does not control the underlying natural factors and never has.

Since the Holocene maximum the ocean heat content has steadily dropped, with the recent increase being dwarfed by the overall decrease. And CO2 has increased over the whole period, explosively over the last century.

Warmth and the greening of the Earth by CO2 fertilization is a good thing. The real fear is the inevitable slide back into glaciation. Postponing that is a boon to mankind. Just ask the people who suffered through the famines of the LIA. Or worse yet, a real glaciation when only the tropics are habitable.

 

[SSDD]

The rather obvious flaws:

1. Climate is not a random walk.

2. Stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG emission bands have moved in one direction along with the temperature. Random walk theory fails to explain that. Global warming theory explains it perfectly.

Sorry hairball, but stratospheric cooling stopped back in the 90's...outgoing LW is and has been increasing for quite some time...all your so called evidence isn't ...it is just lies and the output of failed computer models...nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 has been a decent proxy for these changes, albeit with a time lag that follows the temperature change. Temperatures start to rise even though CO2 is low, start to drop even though CO2 is high. CO2 is not the cause but it does enhance the changes caused by other natural factors.

CO2 only enhances the bank accounts of those willing to perpetrate a scam on those who are to stupid and uneducated, or politically motivated enough to lie to further a political narrative.

Show me a single measurement made by an instrument at ambient temperature that demonstrates a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....that should be basic science and yet, such a measurement is entirely lacking....ever wonder why?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha...what a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense in this thread. Sorry boys, your new pet mathematician in the OP is a few decades late to the party. The idea of "global temps as a random walk" was debunked and discarded long ago.