Analyzze this! (interesting analytic tool for cyclical climate data)

[Botnst]

Calling all you electrical engineers out there: Show us what you've got.

http://woodfortrees.org/

[sjh]

The small amount that I've heard on the topic suggests that temperature data over broader time-scales raise questions about how useful data from just the past 30 years is for modeling anything. It appears it's just too short a time period.

Then the question starts to become what time scale do you use to look cyclic variance. Apparently fairly contradictory results are obtained depending on the time-scale. The modeling is too imperfect.

[Chas H]

From the posted link-
"Has the earth got warmer?
It's not the place of this Web site (or anyone else) to tell you the answers, even if I could!"
Good link Bot.

[tbomachines]

Originally Posted by sjh

The small amount that I've heard on the topic suggests that temperature data over broader time-scales raise questions about how useful data from just the past 30 years is for modeling anything. It appears it's just too short a time period.

Then the question starts to become what time scale do you use to look cyclic variance. Apparently fairly contradictory results are obtained depending on the time-scale. The modeling is too imperfect.

Yes but that data also raises questions about how reliable data has been beyond 30 years ! I agree--too short a time period when we are discussing much larger timeframes.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by sjh

The small amount that I've heard on the topic suggests that temperature data over broader time-scales raise questions about how useful data from just the past 30 years is for modeling anything. It appears it's just too short a time period.

Then the question starts to become what time scale do you use to look cyclic variance. Apparently fairly contradictory results are obtained depending on the time-scale. The modeling is too imperfect.

Or you could look at the data and see for yourself.

[lutzTD]

the problem with time data of this magnitude is it has to make the VERY large assumption that you also know all of the other contributing factors during that time period. the detail data without all factors considered is useless and the averaged out data has no relevance for predicting 100 year trends. if only we could get some science into the science of global "warming"

[elchivito]

I wonder what data the companies and countries who are drooling and rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns over the prospect of the open arctic sea channel are using?

[lutzTD]

Originally Posted by elchivito

I wonder what data the companies and countries who are drooling and rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns over the prospect of the open arctic sea channel are using?

either way, they cant say if it is a cyclic trend of the natural world or a man made response, the northwest passage was navigated in 1905 in a wooden sailboat.......

[sjh]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Or you could look at the data and see for yourself.

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Yes but that data also raises questions about how reliable data has been beyond 30 years ! I agree--too short a time period when we are discussing much larger timeframes.

Thought I'd share the little bit I have come to learn over the pat 10 years.

Certainly don't wish discourage ANY thoughts or exploration.

Provided some perspective.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by lutzTD

the problem with time data of this magnitude is it has to make the VERY large assumption that you also know all of the other contributing factors during that time period. the detail data without all factors considered is useless and the averaged out data has no relevance for predicting 100 year trends. if only we could get some science into the science of global "warming"

Look at the data without preconceptions. Look for patterns, regardless of causes. No need to speculate before you look.

And for deity's sake, do it yourself when the data and tools are presented. Otherwise you're just taking some bozo's word for what you 'should' know.

[boneheaddoctor]

The people selling "Global Warming" today are the same types that were selling "Snake oil" 150 years ago.

[Botnst]

Forget the talking heads. Analyze the data yourself. It's a great opportunity for DYI science!

[Emmerich]

People never ask the right 3 questions:
1) does global warming exist? Answer: yes, and global cooling. Has been cyclic for billions of years.
2) Is it man made? Answer: no. Lots of BS on this aspect, for example the greenhouse gas nonsense. 98% of greenhouse gases are water vapor. Do the math. CO2 is been blamed for warming, when it fact CO2 levels rise approx. 400 years AFTER the temperature rise. See the Coca Cola effect. Add heat, gas comes out of solution, not the other way around.
3) Is global warming bad? No, but global cooling causes everything to DIE. In the 1500s grapes were grown in England, agriculture was booming.

As with just about everything else, to find the answer, just follow the money.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

The people selling "Global Warming" today are the same types that were selling "Snake oil" 150 years ago.

They must be very old.

[boneheaddoctor]

Originally Posted by Botnst

They must be very old.

Those same types have always been around....its just a variation on the same hustle...baffle them with BS.....grab the money and move on before the slower thinkers wise up and catch on nto the con.

Millenia ago they sold cures for leoprocy and used camels.