Are we going for a random walk?

[BlasterBates]

More snow does not mean colder. It is an expected consequence of the melting Arctic Ice.

and what excuse will you have when the arctic ice increases?

....then it´s check mate

I enjoy the climate debate at the moment because you see the thing is to justify my case, all I have to do is sit here and say "look out the f****ing window".

I look forward to the next few years

[pjclarke]

Nothing there actually shows the statistical treatment is wrong?

The stats may be fine but unless the underlying physics and source data is right all the mathturbation in the world is not going to tell you anything about the reality of AGW. From Earth System Dynamics ...

In their analysis of temperature and greenhouse gases, Beenstock et al. (2012) present statistical tests that purport to show that those two variables have different integrability properties, and hence cannot be related. The physics of greenhouse gases are well understood, and date from insights in the late 19th century by Arrhenius (1896). He showed that atmospheric temperature change was proportional to the logarithmic change in CO2. Heat enters the Earth’s atmosphere as radiation from the sun, and is re-radiated from the warmed surface to the atmosphere, where greenhouse gases absorb some of that heat. This heat is re-radiated, so some radiation is directed back towards the Earth’s surface. Thus, greater concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the amount of absorption and hence re-radiation. To “establish” otherwise merely prompts the question “where are the errors in the Beenstock et al. analysis?”. We will demonstrate several major flaws in their approach, such that none of their claimed conclusions has any evidential basis.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss....4-219-2013.pdf

Section 3.2 alone demonstrates amateurish data handling that nullifies the conclusion.

Keep em coming ...

[sasguru]

Over to you pj clarke (and sasguru)

It's great that your interest in the stock market and GW is making you look at tools to find out what's what.
Now all you have to do is learn the pre-requisite maths (advanced calculus and linear algebra mainly) and then do a course in mathematical statistics (as part of a MSc in Stats usually).
Then we can talk on an equal basis rather than, as now, where I may as well be talking to my 3 year old for all the sense you make.

HTH, BIKIW.

[DimPrawn]

It's great that your interest in the stock market and GW is making you look at tools to find out what's what.
Now all you have to do is learn the pre-requisite maths (advanced calculus and linear algebra mainly) and then do a course in mathematical statistics (as part of a MSc in Stats usually).
Then we can talk on an equal basis rather than, as now, where I may as well be talking to my 3 year old for all the sense you make.

HTH, BIKIW.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread.

[BlasterBates]

A picture speaks a thousand words:

[DimPrawn]

On nonstationarity and antipersistency in global temperature series - K[]rner - 2002 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

Keywords:

atmospheric temperature;
solar irradiance;
time series;
nonstationarity;
antipersistency

[1] Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Behavior of the series appears to be nonstationary with stationary daily increments. Estimating long-range dependence between the increments reveals a remarkable difference between the two temperature series. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change. The global average stratospheric temperature anomaly proceeds like a 1-dim random walk at least up to 11 years, allowing good presentation by means of the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models for monthly series.

[BlasterBates]

...and for those that say it´s cold in the Northern Hemisphere because the Arctic is "warm"

[sasguru]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread.

Thank you.
I'd like to say the same to you, but in all honesty I can't since your contributions have been complete crap.

[BlasterBates]

Strange coincidence that as the sun goes quiet the temperatures get progressively colder.

[sasguru]

I enjoy the climate debate at the moment because you see the thing is to justify my case, all I have to do is sit here and say "look out the f****ing window".

Feck me. Your argument is "its cold outside so warming must be wrong".
And then there's ex-poly boy Dim quoting articles he doesn't understand.

You two are either imbeciles or trolls.
Either way, not worth bothering with.