Wouldn't this be cool?

Claudius Denk

unread,

Jun 14, 2013, 1:19:33 PM6/14/13

to

On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, gordo wrote:

Gordo enunciated:
"New Catalyst Neutralizes Gases Responsible for Climate Change"

Claudius Denk responds:
"Wouldn't it be great if there was something that removed CO2 from the
atmosphere and it ran on solar energy and it produced useful
products? Wouldn't that be cool?

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jun 15, 2013, 6:00:52 PM6/15/13

to

Chlorophyll?

josephus

unread,

Jun 14, 2013, 11:06:31 PM6/14/13

to

it would really be cool if the TREND even leveled off.
but I dont see any signs of that.

> MY regular plot [scatter gram]

The data is *
0.0027788| 0.0038476| 0.0049165|
--------------------------------------------------------
2013 40 | . *|

2011 38 | . * |

2009 35 | . * |

2007 32 | . * |

2005 28 | . * |

2003 24 | . * |

2001 20 | * |

1999 17 | * . |

1997 13 | * . |

1995 11 | * . |

1993 8 | * . |

1991 7 | * . |

1989 4 | * . |

1987 2 | * . |

1985 1 | * . |

1983 2 | * . |

1981 2 | * . |

1979 1 | * . |

--------------------------------------------------------
3 lines

* |
** |
** * ** * * * |* * * * * * *
1111111111|22222222223333333333
1234567890123456789|01234567890123456789

A Scientist is anyone who looks at DATA and tries to explain that
data. Deniers just say NO IT IS NOT. poor deniers.

josephus

--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

James

unread,

Jun 15, 2013, 9:38:11 PM6/15/13

to

"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dtqdnciEmLzEYSHM...@earthlink.com

> Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:19:33 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, gordo wrote:
>>>
>>> Gordo enunciated:
>>> "New Catalyst Neutralizes Gases Responsible for Climate Change"
>>>
>>> Claudius Denk responds:
>>> "Wouldn't it be great if there was something that removed CO2 from
>>> the atmosphere and it ran on solar energy and it produced useful
>>> products? Wouldn't that be cool?
>>
>> Chlorophyll?
>
> it would really be cool if the TREND even leveled off.
> but I dont see any signs of that.
>
>

> A Scientist is anyone who looks at DATA and tries to explain that
> data. Deniers just say NO IT IS NOT. poor deniers.

And he makes up his own theory to fit it.

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jun 16, 2013, 12:27:44 AM6/16/13

to

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:06:31 -0500, josephus wrote:

> Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:19:33 -0700, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 13, 12:05 pm, gordo wrote:
>>>
>>> Gordo enunciated:
>>> "New Catalyst Neutralizes Gases Responsible for Climate Change"
>>>
>>> Claudius Denk responds:
>>> "Wouldn't it be great if there was something that removed CO2 from the
>>> atmosphere and it ran on solar energy and it produced useful products?
>>> Wouldn't that be cool?
>>
>> Chlorophyll?
>
> it would really be cool if the TREND even leveled off.
> but I dont see any signs of that.
>
>
>> MY regular plot [scatter gram]
>
> The data is *

The mensual data leads to more accuarate trends, especially if you don't
suppress arbitrarily some years and invent values for years that are
still not over.
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/plclimprod/poemain.accessrouter

Convenient tools to analyse and graph time series can be found here:
http://www.r-project.org/
Learn how to use them to extract useful statistical informations instead
of your coarse and inaccurate plots.

This graph below, which shows the sliding 10 years and 30 years trends
clearly puts the "pause" in evidence:
http://cjoint.com/13ma/CCdllguxIiQ.htm

If you observe the yellow 10 years trend line, you will easily observe
that the values over the last three years have been negative and
decreasing indicating that the end of the blue curve went to a maximum
and is now decreasing.

And, finally, yes, chlorophyll is something which removes so efficiently
CO2 from the atmosphere that its current concentrations are not very
favourable for the vegetation. Higher C02 concentrations will induce the
production of more useful by products such as food for every species, but
they also tend to reduce the concentrations in a negative feedback loop.

josephus

unread,

Jun 15, 2013, 4:42:09 AM6/15/13

to

my step size is a minimum step of 2 years one year is non-ssense.

I know you deleted the graphic because it offends your ignorance.
you talk about stuff unrelated to what I was doing. you think you are
so clever. but I took a best fit program and collected all the
slopes. then I plotted those slopes. and it is the CENTROID TREND
line for the data. all the shapes change about 1970-1980. and
that is not an artifact of the program but the data.

the fact is all the DATA i have been presented with resemble that
data. the only difference is that ICE Data bends later than
Temperature Data. it says evil things about GW. the implication
is that temperatures will CONTINUE to RISE. and no ammount of
denial will change that. MY CENTROID GRAPHIC is the MEDIAN SLOPE of
the RECORD. not the simple average.

PS you dont have a tool to do this.

Sleepalot

unread,

Jun 16, 2013, 1:54:32 AM6/16/13

to

No, you only have to _be_ a tool to do that.

Into the killfile with you, troll.

>
>
>josephus

Paul Aubrin

unread,

Jun 21, 2013, 2:04:54 AM6/21/13

to

On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:42:09 -0500, josephus wrote:

> Paul Aubrin wrote:

>> [...]

>
> my step size is a minimum step of 2 years one year is non-ssense.

Your selective use of data would be nonsense if it wasn't intentional.

>
> I know you deleted the graphic because it offends your ignorance.

I remove your graph because it is very big and irrelevant for my answer.
Anyone who wants to see your graph can very simply look back at your
dozen of posts.
What your graphs show is that your knowledge of analysis techniques of
time series is non-existent. As you couldn't make any progress on this
subject over the last few months, you shouldn't be so satisfied of
continued ignorance.