Sentences with phrase «temperatures fit his curve»

He had good reason to do so as global temperatures fit his curve less well than do his (idiosyncratic) European temperatures:

Not exact matches

William and Stillwell chose to study green roofs over other forms of green infrastructure for a very simple reason: There was one on campus fitted with the instrumentation needed to measure soil moisture, rainfall amount, temperature, humidity and many other variables that are plugged into their fragility curve model.

, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong.

Test of the Hasselmann model through a regression analysis, where the coloured curves are the best - fit modelled values for Q based on the Hasselmann model and global mean temperatures (PDF).

Variations in the speed of the earth's spin in the form of length of day may fire the imaginations of curve - fitters with graphs like this from Dickey et al (2011) matching Length of Day against global temperature shorn of AGW.

And another question arising from your answer: Did you really choose your data periods in a way that there was the best fit of your calculated curves to the temperature curve?

@ 183 it was shown that the global temperature record does not immediately demonstrate a convincing BNO (R)(that is a «radiatively forced» version of Judith Curry's Big Natural Oscillation) but it was also asserted that applying some judicious curve - fitting would render any such a demonstration inconclusive.

The linear effects that ENSO and volcanic aerosols have on global temperatures are well documented through a multitude of different analyses, including «curve - fitting».

Plug CO2 into a physical model — or God forbid do some curve - fitting of CO2 to temperature — and watch this forum work itself into a lather about how that isn't doing Real Science.

Even if you detrend the dCO2 - temperature curve (that means zero contribution to the trend), you will find the same fit.

And you can see that the CO2rise / year curve and the temperature curve fits nicely from 1977 to 2008 except for the 0,5 ppm / year that the long term trend shifts over the 30 years.

Dan, I'm not sure which ~ 60 yr cycle Tamino is referring to, but if you are pursuing a line + cycle curve - fit for the instrumental temperature record, you should know that an exponential + sine is a better fit to temps than the line + sine model.

Fitting any type continuous curve through long term temperature does not reflect the earth's climate variations, thus is not an acceptable mathematical modeling technique.

Global temperature curve fitting is boring and trivial, given free choice of parameters or french curves.

First a roughly 60 full cycle like Akasofu, but here in a more complex host of networked physical features rather than just a temperature curve fit.

Seems to me that the AGW curve is a better fit to the temperature record than F3 - SAW.

@ER: Global temperature curve fitting is boring and trivial, given free choice of parameters or french curves.

There is absolutely no error analysis, and all those spaghetti graphs are the modeler's estimate of what happens to their model once they fiddle the parameters to fit the temperature curves and they change the initial conditions of the time development!

It is my understanding that he derived these results from his knowledge of the infrared properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour (and not by curve fitting to observations, though he had also carried out his own estimates of changes in global temperature.)

However, looking at the natural climate / temperature indicator of July sea ice extent reconstructed back to 1870 a smoothed - line fit starts to curve downward at about in the 1941 - 1970 period.

If manmade global warming is true the temperature is going to keep rising, irregardless of past changes and whether you can fit them with various curves.

[Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] then arbitrarily change the time scale in the reconstruction to obtain yet another CRF curve (the red curve in Fig. 2 of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]-RRB-, which they call «fine tuned to best fit the low - latitude temperature».

The «curve - fitting» reveals the 60 - year 0.2 degree amplitude cycle that the skeptics are so excited about, but also shows that the AMO lags the land temperature in this frequency range.

We thus find that there is no significant correlation of the CRF curve from Shaviv's model and the temperature curve of Veizer, even after one of the four CRF peaks was arbitrarily shifted by 40 m.y. to improve the fit to the temperature curve.

The reason given in Briffa 2001 for their selection of a certain reconstruction is discussed: >> > The selection of a single reconstruction of the ALL temperature series is clearly somewhat arbitrary... The method that produces the best fit in the calibration period is principal component regression... << >> ``... we note that the 1450s were much cooler in all of the other (i.e., not PCA regression) methods of producing this curve...» << <

Your later explanation that the models have been tuned to fit the global temperature curve (reiterated in a comment by Greg Goodman on March 23, 2012 at 3:30 pm), is likewise incorrect.

You simply can not predict that temperatures are going to get colder based upon a model which is simply a mathematical fit of semi-arbitrary curves.

Webby — fits a curve that is circular reasoning and finally discovers that ENSO influences surface temperature..

However, Vahrenholt's statement is based on curve fitting applied to a finite time series of (local) temperatures.

Granted, the «great climate shift» of 76 - 77 occurred as well about this time, and many would say that warm period of the PDO is really the caused of the warming in the late 20th century, but it would be interesting to hear your rationale for choosing the early 1950's as the beginning of your measurement period for looking for anthropogenic effects, as from 1950 to about 1980, we have no need of an anthropogenic explanation, as the length of the solar cycle can fit the temperature curve quite well.

The suggestion that recent warming is anthropogenic due to divergence from a simple 60/20 year curve fit over a mere 100 years ignores prior divergence from both competing models of distantly past temperature, one being a hockey stick that shows a slow decline instead of incline prior 1850 and the other showing two similar «non-cyclical» spikes in the Roman and medieval periods.

Correlation is not causation; all L&S have demonstrated in their unphysical curve fitting exercise is a correlation between their cycles and global temperature.

It merely smoothes the historical temperature curve from ENSO short term effects in a manner Judith approved of (when it had been performed by Kosaka and Xie) and the result is completely independent of the underlying fitted curve that you traced.

This will clearly result in more papers trying to explain this fact on subjects such as climate sensitivity, as well as whether or not CFCs caused more warming than originally thought, radiation of heat into space as earth's effective temperature increases, and whether the saturation of absorption of EMR by CO2 in the atmosphere actually fits the logrithmic curve.

In fact, it is readily shown that the statistics of temperature fit obtained using the abstracted flux curve are superior to your assumption of a quadratic in temperature / straight line in flux.

An alternative that ventures into «curve - fitting» would be to fit a linear regression to the UAH temperatures being used.

It boils down to there being a lot of noise from things like solar and volcanoes, and superimposed on that greenhouse gases and within the existing uncertainty it's not that hard to pick and choose your forcings and climate sensitivity to come up with something that fits the actual temperature curve quite well.

But approaching the question of discernable temperature anomalies and trends and correlations with human behaviour with curve fitting... and then to bog down in arguments about whether it is statistically valid to do so... does take the eye off physics arguments and is just sooo missing the point.