Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
The "appeal to your authorities" and acceptance of PAL REVIEW as an acceptable practice tells me you are not a scientist..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.You don't have a damn clue as to what I do or do not know.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.Actually the essay is written in paper form, but his analysis is dead on.. Again the facts call you idiots out as charlatans...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.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..
Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’
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.
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.
The "appeal to your authorities" and acceptance of PAL REVIEW as an acceptable practice tells me you are not a scientist..
It is you who is a clueless dupe... I challenged your narrative with empirical evidence and facts.. Your response is appeals to idiots and no facts..
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’
Oh, then you will have no problem identifying for us all where he assumed there was no trend within his proof, when that was what he was ostensibly proving.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’
It's interesting. But it's always possible for any record that APPEARS random to be an actual process with forcings and system response functions. OR a combination of an actual process WITH large amounts of "noise" present.
In fact, spent my life separating REAL images and signals from "random processes" .. And most of time when you first start -- it adheres to a description of a totally random process at first inspection..
Is this a random process or a rough sand beach?
Oh, then you will have no problem identifying for us all where he assumed there was no trend within his proof, when that was what he was ostensibly proving.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’
It's interesting. But it's always possible for any record that APPEARS random to be an actual process with forcings and system response functions. OR a combination of an actual process WITH large amounts of "noise" present.
In fact, spent my life separating REAL images and signals from "random processes" .. And most of time when you first start -- it adheres to a description of a totally random process at first inspection..
Is this a random process or a rough sand beach?
"The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. "Oh, then you will have no problem identifying for us all where he assumed there was no trend within his proof, when that was what he was ostensibly proving.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’
It's interesting. But it's always possible for any record that APPEARS random to be an actual process with forcings and system response functions. OR a combination of an actual process WITH large amounts of "noise" present.
In fact, spent my life separating REAL images and signals from "random processes" .. And most of time when you first start -- it adheres to a description of a totally random process at first inspection..
Is this a random process or a rough sand beach?
It's simple. His error is comparing random walk to a data set with only 150 samples and using fixed perturbation. That's roughly the # of years since 1880. EVEN IF it's done on monthly/daily basis and the perturbation reduced accordingly, all he's showing is how a true random process MIGHT behave over that short period.
The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. And it's NOT random, because we know there are actual periodic natural processes included. And because there are many of them and ADDITIVE -- they can "modulate" a mean value for LONG periods of time.
Even the warmers agreed however, that a GW signature was not LARGE ENOUGH to emerge from the "noise" until the anomaly was in the 0.5 or 1degC range. (or about the 1990s)
So we are just ABOVE the "noise level" in terms of statistical confidence in CITING a trend. That's also important to recognize. 150 yrs just might be not be long enough.
"The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. "Oh, then you will have no problem identifying for us all where he assumed there was no trend within his proof, when that was what he was ostensibly proving.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’
It's interesting. But it's always possible for any record that APPEARS random to be an actual process with forcings and system response functions. OR a combination of an actual process WITH large amounts of "noise" present.
In fact, spent my life separating REAL images and signals from "random processes" .. And most of time when you first start -- it adheres to a description of a totally random process at first inspection..
Is this a random process or a rough sand beach?
It's simple. His error is comparing random walk to a data set with only 150 samples and using fixed perturbation. That's roughly the # of years since 1880. EVEN IF it's done on monthly/daily basis and the perturbation reduced accordingly, all he's showing is how a true random process MIGHT behave over that short period.
The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. And it's NOT random, because we know there are actual periodic natural processes included. And because there are many of them and ADDITIVE -- they can "modulate" a mean value for LONG periods of time.
Even the warmers agreed however, that a GW signature was not LARGE ENOUGH to emerge from the "noise" until the anomaly was in the 0.5 or 1degC range. (or about the 1990s)
So we are just ABOVE the "noise level" in terms of statistical confidence in CITING a trend. That's also important to recognize. 150 yrs just might be not be long enough.
That's not a conclusion, it's a first premise, as I understand it. Which is why scientists worked very hard to whittle away that probability through empirical evidence. And they have done so.
"Being just above the noise level" is an interesting way of putting it. another would be that we have ruled out that it is just part of the noise, and is now a clear signal.
" It's just more probable that move of the mean is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT compared to the observed variance.""The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. "Oh, then you will have no problem identifying for us all where he assumed there was no trend within his proof, when that was what he was ostensibly proving.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..
Analysis says NOAA global temperature data ‘doesn’t constitute a “smoking gun” for global warming’
It's interesting. But it's always possible for any record that APPEARS random to be an actual process with forcings and system response functions. OR a combination of an actual process WITH large amounts of "noise" present.
In fact, spent my life separating REAL images and signals from "random processes" .. And most of time when you first start -- it adheres to a description of a totally random process at first inspection..
Is this a random process or a rough sand beach?
It's simple. His error is comparing random walk to a data set with only 150 samples and using fixed perturbation. That's roughly the # of years since 1880. EVEN IF it's done on monthly/daily basis and the perturbation reduced accordingly, all he's showing is how a true random process MIGHT behave over that short period.
The best conclusion is that there is a PROBABILITY that it's random. And it's NOT random, because we know there are actual periodic natural processes included. And because there are many of them and ADDITIVE -- they can "modulate" a mean value for LONG periods of time.
Even the warmers agreed however, that a GW signature was not LARGE ENOUGH to emerge from the "noise" until the anomaly was in the 0.5 or 1degC range. (or about the 1990s)
So we are just ABOVE the "noise level" in terms of statistical confidence in CITING a trend. That's also important to recognize. 150 yrs just might be not be long enough.
That's not a conclusion, it's a first premise, as I understand it. Which is why scientists worked very hard to whittle away that probability through empirical evidence. And they have done so.
"Being just above the noise level" is an interesting way of putting it. another would be that we have ruled out that it is just part of the noise, and is now a clear signal.
Doesn't go from "nothing" to "a clear signal". It's just more probable that move of the mean is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT compared to the observed variance. Then again -- you've only got any realistic data about the mean and variation for 150 years. So -- there may be a trend local to the observation period that fails again if more ancient and future data was included..
I'm not arguing there is no trend.. I'm just telling you it's NOT as "clear a signal" as you claim. At any rate, the projections made on theory are now a FRACTION of the awfully scary ones made in the 1980s.
pretty clear
Thanks, i will. When scientists say, "pretty clear", that usually means they have a lot of confidence. I like the language they use. maybe you could point me to some of your published, scientific work, or maybe some of your university seminars, so that i may see what kind of language you use?pretty clear
Yeah, that's the ticket. You stick with "pretty clear"...
The Author simply played around with the number of lags allowed, until he got a result he liked. He excluded reality, and if you do that, you can “prove” whatever you want.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’
Five different analysis show us that mans impact is not discernible from natural variation or the systemic noise of a chaotic system. Compelling evidence, to say the least, that our crop of alarmist modelers do not understand the system they think they are modeling. The divergence from reality shows how little they know...When you look at the gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores at both the arctic and antarctic, the claim that any human signature whatsoever can be detected in the climate to day is simply ludicrous. We are so far away from anything happening in our climate at present that even approaches the limits of natural variability that the very idea of claiming that it is possible to tease out a human fingerprint is laughable.
Before we can even begin to claim that we can detect a human fingerprint, we must first have a comprehensive understanding of the natural drivers of the climate...how they effect the climate and how they effect each other. At present, we have barely scratched the surface in that area of understanding...if you were to make a comparison, at present our understanding of the climate and what drives it wouldn't even put us to the level of understanding that medicine had when they thought bleeding people was state of the art.
Really? Ok, you lying little asshole, give us a link to all five. LOLFive different analysis show us that mans impact is not discernible from natural variation or the systemic noise of a chaotic system. Compelling evidence, to say the least, that our crop of alarmist modelers do not understand the system they think they are modeling. The divergence from reality shows how little they know...When you look at the gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores at both the arctic and antarctic, the claim that any human signature whatsoever can be detected in the climate to day is simply ludicrous. We are so far away from anything happening in our climate at present that even approaches the limits of natural variability that the very idea of claiming that it is possible to tease out a human fingerprint is laughable.
Before we can even begin to claim that we can detect a human fingerprint, we must first have a comprehensive understanding of the natural drivers of the climate...how they effect the climate and how they effect each other. At present, we have barely scratched the surface in that area of understanding...if you were to make a comparison, at present our understanding of the climate and what drives it wouldn't even put us to the level of understanding that medicine had when they thought bleeding people was state of the art.
.absolutely nothing........if you look at it as a football field, they haven't moved the ball even a yard. People care far less now than they did 10 years ago. Bring up "climate change" in congress and representatives can run out of the chambers fast enough.
)
Really? Ok, you lying little asshole, give us a link to all five. LOLFive different analysis show us that mans impact is not discernible from natural variation or the systemic noise of a chaotic system. Compelling evidence, to say the least, that our crop of alarmist modelers do not understand the system they think they are modeling. The divergence from reality shows how little they know...When you look at the gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores at both the arctic and antarctic, the claim that any human signature whatsoever can be detected in the climate to day is simply ludicrous. We are so far away from anything happening in our climate at present that even approaches the limits of natural variability that the very idea of claiming that it is possible to tease out a human fingerprint is laughable.
Before we can even begin to claim that we can detect a human fingerprint, we must first have a comprehensive understanding of the natural drivers of the climate...how they effect the climate and how they effect each other. At present, we have barely scratched the surface in that area of understanding...if you were to make a comparison, at present our understanding of the climate and what drives it wouldn't even put us to the level of understanding that medicine had when they thought bleeding people was state of the art.
