What I do know about those climate model predictions about future warming is that the rate of warming needs to increase substantially. Maybe pegminer can drop by and explain what part of that is a linear function.
Let's start with the statement "Pegminer has stated I was lying for saying they look like an exponential..."
Ok, find a quote where I say that, because I'm quite certain that I NEVER said that.
One of the problems with the things you say is that they are never accurate. They're not accurate about science, they're not accurate about math, and they're not accurate about what other people say.
Those graphs DO look like exponentials--but that does not MAKE them exponentials. Lots of functions look similar over short time spans. You're claiming they don't look linear? Maybe you're looking at the wrong portion of their graphs. Ok then, let's take a TRUE exponential, the function f(x) = exp(x) and compare with a pure linear function f(x) = 1 + x.
One way to do this is to look at the percent difference between the two functions. If you go to
http://www.walterzorn.de/en/grapher/grap...
you can make your own plot.
I plotted
(exp(x)-1-x)/exp(x)*100
over the range x = [0,0.1] and the quantity was less than 0.5 over the entire range, which means that the linear function differed from the exponential function by less than 0.5%. Now do you see the problem? You didn't say "That graph looks exponential" you said that it WAS exponential. Big difference.
Similarly, you could plot 1+sin(x) over that range and take the difference with 1+x and plot that, and you'd find that it was about a 0.02% difference.
The problem with calling it an exponential when it may not be is that that implies information about its behavior outside of the whatever range is shown. You are sloppy in your mathematics and you are sloppy in what you claim other people say.
I don't think I've ever said that someone you said was a lie, but your claim that "Pegminer has stated I was lying for saying they look like an exponential..." comes awfully close.
Personally, I care whether what I say is true or not; you, apparently, do not.
OM,
LOL, Very valid points.
I want to see if any warmers are actually going to claim it looks linear. Or even that it doesn't look exponential. And while the data looks cyclical, the models sure don't so I have no idea why he suggested a fourier transform.
Will the warmers so divorce themselves from their integrity as to back pegminer's assertions? Will they not touch this with a ten-foot pole? Will they come on here and throw around some random insults that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Gary F,
Your summary of zippi's statement is funny to me, given that is not what he said at all. Tell you what, why don't you tell me the exact high temperature within say 0.01 degrees in Duluth, Minnesota say 48 days from now. You can't???
Hows bout this? Is Einstein one of the greatest minds of the 20th century? He helped develop the atom bomb. The very technology that could lead to the end of mankind. Did he think man would not use it? Did he think he was just performing a mental exercise? Are you praising the atom bomb?
And if we create a virus that wipes out most of humanity. Will you be praising science?
Acknowledging the limitations and detriments of science is hardly the same thing as rejecting science. My child is stubborn. Does that mean I hate my child??? HARDLY.
The worse-case scenarios look exponential and the others linear. I'm not sure what your point is here. I mean exponential simply means a rate increase, which is what the data has been showing thus far. The projections range from rate increase to linear increase depending on different scenarios. Either way you look at it, it's a clear warming trend and anyone that argues that is simply delusional.
Zippi62: There are a lot of variables that have an affect on temperature, you're correct. However to say that it's impossible to make significant predictions only displays YOUR ignorance on the topic, and not the ignorance of climate scientists that make the predictions. For one, variability in average global temperature is quite a bit less complex than regional temperature change. You have a certain amount of forcings, an energy cycle, and some positive/negative feedback mechanisms. Some forcings have much more impact than others, some are so negligible that they aren't even worth considering. Models and predictions have proven to be incredibly accurate considering the complexity of the issue. These guys know what they're talking about, they consider as many factors as humanly possible including such things as cloud dynamics and the difference in forcings between cloud types. Not understanding the science behind something is a poor excuse to be critical on it. Also CO2 in our atmosphere IS causing "increased and varying temperature extremes". That stupid argument that because CO2 is a "trace gas", it has no real significance on global temperatures is old and lame. For example, the sun is the source of almost all of the energy the earth receives, and has correlated very well with temperature changes in the recent past up until the 20th century. Then you see a significant increase in surface temperatures with very little variability in solar activity, as seen here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba... So if your logic were correct, that only large forcings have any significant impact (the sun being the largest of all), then how do you explain the recent warming? The fact is that the earth is generally a closed system and self-regulating. The sun's energy output can remain constant and there can be significant changes in global temperatures due to natural (or in this case anthropogenic) causes. "Trace" greenhouse gasses such as CO2 work to radiate long-wave radiation back to the earth's surface. They prevent that heat from escaping, so logically the more molecules doing their job in the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped. Also 390 parts per million may not sound like a lot, but consider that a parcel of atmosphere with a million particles is not all that large, take them all together and that's a crap load of CO2 that's steadily increasing. CO2's radioactive forcing has long been known and can be shown in a simple experiment. Finally I have no idea what the heck your point is in the about the Ebola virus. Are you trying to say climate scientists are the same as ecological scientists? That they want to protect all living organisms on the planet unconditionally? Because that's just ridiculous. Also destroying "nature" and destroying disease causing agents are two different things, although sometimes destroying a disease can have a negative impact on an ecosystem. Global warming causes ecosystem changes on a massive scale. Killing a virus to protect our own well-being is hardly comparable.
What is with you people and the attitude that humans can do no wrong to the environment? That is obviously not true with an uncountable number of examples in our past of how we have changed the natural environment, and negative consequences for US (not just other organisms) has resulted. Dust bowl anyone? The Black Death anyone? Yeh that disease that killed around 50% of Europe's population, that was due to our ignorance on disease ecology. They carried those black rats over on merchant ships and provided a nice environment for them to proliferate. WE caused one of the largest declines in human population ever recorded. So please forgive me if I laugh at the notion that human's do not significantly impact their environment. We do and have done a crap load of stupid things that have changed the earth and its systems ever since the dawn of civilization.
Hard to tell from that chart, as the first 90% is irrelevant. It is basically a trick to get the proxies to look like hockey sticks.
I have seen reported by many climate alarmists that the projections show an acceleration of warming. Particularly in response to the argument that the small amount of warming should mean the higher warming models are invalidated, and overall estimates should be lowered. I have never been able to independently verify this claim, as I could not find the high warming models that get bandied about.
High CO2 Levels, HIGH Sea Levels, Volatile Weather, Extreme droughts, Extreme floodings, SUPER Hot Summers, Super Cold Winters (Like the US in the 2013-2014 Winter) Because it's NOT Global Warming BUT Climate Change
One of the main points of contention among scientists is what will happen to the planet as a result of global warming. Some believe that the earth will actually benefit if the climate continues to grow warmer. Others insist that the opposite is true, saying that if the planet continues to heat up, the effects will be catastrophic. NASA sums up these very different perspectives:
Many see [global warming] as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent. . . . On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists' measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming. In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios. 30
Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/...
Let's deal with the Fourier Transform first. The FT here gives you nothing because: (1) the decomposed signals may have no basis in physical reality even when derived from a physically-driven system and (2) it assumes that the time series infinitely repeats itself - which clearly is not the case for data from chaotic systems.
The "predictions" can "look" like anything from log to linear to exponential to (as Pegminer notes) some poynomial - whcih is, in fact, the case since such a function can modelled to fit anything. The reality, however, is that such assumtions or empirically defined functions are irrelevant since the parameters of the system are time variant and models are developed based on parameters constrained by the distributions of the empirical data.
Several Deniers claim to have used FTs to define component signals through empirical decomposition of the temperature data and identified "linear" or whatever trends in the "predictions" - however, their models fail to even hindcast correctly.
=====
Zippi62 --
>>Science is 2-faced and always has been. <<
Finally, a Denier who admits that they philosophically reject science and do not believe that "true" knowledge can be found from empirical evidence that exists exclusively within the physical universe.
Sagebrush believes exactly the same thing, but is too stupid to recognisze the epistemology he follows, let alone understand it.
=====
edit --
Why don't you ask a question that doesn't exceed the known limits of human stupidity.
"Looking" at the "predictions" does not tell a knowledgeable anything. For Deniers, for whom graphs are unintelligible random images, they are like a Rorschach test that bypasses their brains and elicits their true subjective emotions.
For the"upper" predictions (blue and green, at least) in the graph, it is impossible to visually distinguish between a linear and exponential trend. That can only be determined mathematically - and even then, over the time period provided, it is still little more than a guess.
"Future projections differ depending on estimated changes in human greenhouse gas emissions."
A2 is modeled assuming an increasing amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=clim...
A1B is model assuming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions progress on a "business as usual" amount of emissions. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=clim...
B1 is modeled assuming that attempts to reduce the anthropogenic CO2 are put into action. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=clim...
None of the models take into consideration that positive feedback mechanisms may occur during the time frame of the model runs. There is simply no way to know when this happen and therefore are not a part of the model runs. An example would be a relatively large methane release into the atmosphere due to the warming of the oceans and the melting of the permafrost. We are beginning to see some of this happening now, but not on a large scale.
Current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are now higher than the "business as usual" amount that was considered. This would give some credence to the A2 model runs being the most accurate of the model runs by the end time (the year 2100) of the model runs.
Does the graphic "look" like it is linear or exponential? The graphic looks like the faster we put CO2 into the atmosphere the greater the amount of warming will be by the year 2100. When you drive your car off of a cliff, do you then look at your wrecked car and ask if this happened linearly or exponentially?
There are too many variables that have an affect on temperatures to make any "substantially significant" predictions. That's what these "climate clowns" don't ever try and convey. They want everyone to think they are smarter than everyone else when it comes to understanding the climate. That's simply "scientific arrogance"!
Drawing "Global Warming" with a line is what the alarmists try to do when they are "trying" to blame carbon emissions. The Earth depends on rises and falls of temperatures to remain variable and not "monotone". That's life! It seems that alarmists depend on "trends" or at least a visual effect of human forcing.
"Climate Clown Environmental Extremist Scientists" (like Pegminer) are delusional, if they think a rise in trace amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere are causing increased and varying temperature extremes. They have pushed the idea of "CO2 Warming" on us so hard, that a simple "lay-person" has no clue what causes "natural climate variability" any more, nor do they understand what has caused past extreme fluctuations in temperatures.
------------------------
Additionally:
"Climate Clowns" also don't understand that viruses (like the Ebola virus) are "living" organisms that are trying to survive and they (the virus) "unfortunately" kill people in the process of trying to "live". Should we also prosecute the doctors who are developing serums that "kill" the Ebola Virus in humans? Isn't that also destroying "nature"?
Science is 2-faced and always has been. That's life. Hypocrisy is something that we all practice no matter how hard we try not to.
Please ntoe Figure 1 are some of the global warming predictions.
http://greenninja.org/faq/why-would-a-few-degrees-of-warming-be-a-big-deal/
Do they look like.
a.) A linear function
b.) something you should do a fourier transformation on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
c.) An exponential function?
Pegminer has stated I was lying for saying they look like an exponential and gave these other options.
I suppose I could say it looks like a higher-order polynomial, but I worry many will not get the jist of what I am saying.
Is it worrisome that a climate scientist who models as part of their job (pegminer) think the can be well-modeled with a line?
Does it look like an exponential? Is someone lying if they claim it does?
