Real Numbers for Gobal Warming - Some Surprises!

Great work OP looks like whe. You look at a larger image of what's been happening vs focusing on a tiny fragment of the data that there is little change. Perhaps none. I guess we will have to wait and see.

a reply to: crayzeed

But the moment you said "missing data" Oh only a day here and there ALL your work was nullified.

You're going to have a world of trouble finding any comprehensive data analysis that does not have missing or troublesome data. Machines break down; that's a fact of life. While I was disappointed in the fact that the data was not 100% continuous, I did the best that could be done.

More importantly, and you might notice this is a deviation from most of the reports we hear about, I specified what I did to adjust for the missing data. These are official weather stations, meaning that I used the same dataset that NOAA and NASA used. The only difference was that I concentrated on a single area so I could finish a more detailed analysis within a semi-reasonable time frame.

If you discount my analysis on that basis, you also discount all other analyses based on official weather records.

So now I'm reading a conclusion from a multiple missing and corrupt database and you want me to believe you?

Nope.

I never said "please believe me" in either post of the OP. I have presented my data and my methodology, along with my conclusions. You get to choose whether or not you believe me. I don't do analyses based on belief.

I will say, some others in this thread have mentioned actual realistic concerns. You seem to think hiding missing data is preferable to open acknowledgement? Why?
TheRedneck

Outstanding research will upset some people on here, from reading other peoples research, NGO reports, even NASA, I dont think there is any warming, but that is just me. To me it seems the planet is cooling, what with all the snow, frosts, ice in unexpected places. Perhaps even, I just want to what I want to see, like many other people.

a reply to: rickymouse

But we have to quit poisoning the environment like we are these days, I do not want to go fishing in lakes and streams and never get a fish.

Neither do I.

However, considering that all resources are limited by definition, is it not smarter to put resources toward known issues, such as water pollution, ocean pollution, landfill expansion, and actual harmful chemicals in the air?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Serdgiam

I'd be curious to see what other cycles do correlate with what we see.

As am I.

That's why I mentioned future FFT analyses. That should tell me what period cycles are operating and in what relative amount. That's going to take some time, though, and to be honest I'm a little burned out of looking at temperatures right now. Sometimes a break from a project brings new insight.

But, like all of my projects, it will be continued and I will try to post my results from the FFTs here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ManFromEurope

I would like to understand whats in it for climate change deniers. Do you imagine us others in the future being poor living in slums while you can dine in chatels?

I can tell you what I see in it for me.

I want the pollution we produce across the planet cleaned up. I want that island of plastic in the Pacific gone. I want the landfills to stop getting bigger every year. I want the water to stay clean (or in many places be cleaned up). How are we going to do that when the whole world is looking at carbon dioxide and ignoring everything else?

TheRedneck

a reply to: eManym

It appears from the animated graph of actual temperatures, there is a drift to later in the year for summer temps.. Maybe in 800 years or so, winter will occur early in the year instead of late in the year.

Oh, really? I honestly did not see that. Thank you!

I'm trying to figure out a way to analyze for that shift in seasons... when I do figure out a way, I'll likely go ahead and do it. I already have the data after all, and it's probably something that can be done directly from Excel (unlike the FFT analysis).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And every attempt to do the things that need to be done are bogged down with carbon tax pork that drag actual needed measures down.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is indeed the problem.

One telling aspect is that even though there are commercially viable methods to clean the atmosphere of 'excess' carbon dioxide, they are all... without a single exception... downplayed by politicians in favor of a carbon tax, If carbon dioxide were an issue, it would only make sense that cleaning the air would be a priority, and if the situation were desperate, a primary priority.

The same people who are in favor of the carbon taxation are also those who look the other way when more common pollution issues arise.

TheRedneck

Thank you for this research.

Everyone that's informed and not just a follower of MSM knows that climate change due to Co2 is the wrong direction.

I too want for us to stop polluting so much but since that's something we can all agree without the need of scientists, I'm not sure if that's a path the media wants to take.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And if in the Earth is imminently about to be beyond the tipping point why does the Paris Accord let China continue until 2030 to INCREASE their carbon output?

No wonder China supports it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ArMaP

Correct. I am also aware that local phenomena may concentrate any actual global climate trends in certain areas. However, I would expect some indication at almost every location.

I look at it this way: in our experience, the largest indicator of average temperature is longitude. Secondary to that would be ocean currents and physical obstacles such as mountain ranges. Those are not going to change with global carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, it only make sense that while some areas may be more prone to temperature deviations, over time all areas should see warming if the planet warms. I know of no mechanism outside magic which would account for other behavior.

If you would like to perform similar analysis on temperatures in other areas, I will gladly make my templates available on request.

TheRedneck

Being at the tail end of Tornado Alley, is there a way to measure severe weather outbreaks against those graphs?

I wonder how it was trending in '89 (Airport Rd tornado).

Great work, coincidentally I have just been looking at some interesting graphs on the BBC website.

Maybe of interest if you haven't already seen it.

www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: TheRedneck


In closing, this is real, hard data analysis people. Now, you know what it looks like.

Is this a statistics assignment? If it is, great work.

If it is an attempt to explain climate change, you need more than one location.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Being at the tail end of Tornado Alley, is there a way to measure severe weather outbreaks against those graphs?

WeatherUnderground does have wind direction/speed and precipitation data. You might want to look into that.

If I do any more thorough analysis, that will be the next thing I look at.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ioweagle

Those tend to fall in line with my data (at least the ones concerning actual observed climate data). The main difference is what the numbers mean. I think I put forward a reasonable explanation for the warming indications that does not rely on carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Is this a statistics assignment? If it is, great work.

If it is an attempt to explain climate change, you need more than one location.

It's not really statistics... it's more of a numerical analysis. Had it been statistical, I would not have used numerical methods for the average daily temperatures, as I pointed out in the OP. But, I question your last conclusion. I got the same readings that others have gotten, based on a single location. The difference is that I went a bit farther back than most, and found an indication that the warming experienced is cyclical, not a linear progression.

Feel free to add your own analysis of other cities, though.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JBIZZ

I'm interested to know if you have better temperature records?

What I attempted is a simple analysis. There must be hard data to perform such an analysis. Now, if you want to dispute the data, that is perfectly acceptable... but recall that by doing so you are also disputing a dataset that is in use in the vast majority of studies showing carbon dioxide based Global Warming.

I have actually proved those studies that show warming since 1960. I got similar results. When I added in data prior to 1960 I got a more realistic and expected results, however.

Feel free to show your own results. I am interested.

TheRedneck

The best data I can think of that anyone can work with is ocean surface temperature. But this is manipulated by plankton which release certain chemicals into the air that aids the formation of clouds.

Land base temperature measurement systems are susceptible to the heat island effect as urban areas grows. The change in colour of the native ground to black tarmac, or whitewashed buildings and reflective glass can change the absorption of heat.

a reply to: TheRedneck

One of the things Anthony Watts of What's Up With That fame (or infamy) noticed was that a lot of temperature measuring stations that used to be located over natural turf are now located over hard blacktop. Do you know what if any such environmental factors might have played over time in your temperature data sets?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
I would like to understand whats in it for climate change deniers. Do you imagine us others in the future being poor living in slums while you can dine in chatels?

And this is completely random and not a coincidence at all that 19 of 20 World Leaders Just Pledged to Fight Climate Change. Trump Was the Lone Holdout. has happened today, too.

Okay, you do yours. Even the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians and the whole of the EU thinks otherwise. That COULD be a black-hat operation, something going on behind the scene and Donald looked right through it.

Or.. maybe not.

wow, did you miss the mark on this one. This is one of the few instances where AGW isn't politicized. The OP listed his data and collection methods and offered it up for peer review. From my limited exposure to reality, I'd call that "science". Now if you disagree with his methods or data, explain why and a discussion can be had. But to be a giant sheep or lemming won't solve anything. His data showed a warming trend, which was the original discussion. It just also showed the beginning of a cooling trend. That may not be something the rest of the world see's, but then, until they also present their data, we just don't know.

I would rather approach this with the hope that this is largely a cycle and we aren't doomed. Because if the one's who push the gloom and doom are correct, we are already screwed up, and without a new direction to go regarding fuel sources, it's game over. So while I'm in the minority and I choose to hold out hope that more math errors may exist, I sincerely hope that we aren't doomed, the world will rebound as if always has, and not purge us in the process. So nothing in it for me, except we all get to continue to live. Shame on me.