Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

In your dreams. Herald. That is not what an exponential curve looks like. It looks pretty much like a real-world example of a close-to-linear curvefrom year to year but shows an essentially steady buildup of CO2 in the atmospher with slight increase as world consumption of fossil fuels has increased over the last several decades, but by no means exponential, any more than world production of fossil fuels is exponential. Your math is as bogus as your science. It's far closer to linear than to anywhere near the exponents you keep citing.

1 Reply

@Herald,

http://www.stock-trading-warrior.com/images/Stock-Market-History-Graph-.gif.pagespeed.ce.YnQTliUE2z.gif

OMG, if you look at this chart and put a ruler on the tangent of the curve from 1920- 1930, it is obviously exponential in growth and the stock market should reach infinity next year. Anyone competent in math formal modelling like Herald should be able to explain it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

In your dreams. Herald. That is not what an exponential curve looks like.

Which is the function of approximation of that data?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

OMG, if you look at this chart and put a ruler on the tangent of the curve from 1920- 1930.

What about some more serious analysis - the three year moving average for example ... in the last 25 years?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Heerald says:

Quote:

Which is the function of approximation of that data?

Whatever you think this means, it doesn't.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Really? Serious analysis using a 3 year moving average for the last 25 years?

I wonder why you didn't use that standard in this post...
http://able2know.org/topic/226001-305#post-6002631
Which analysis do you prefer? A ruler on a 10 year time span or a serious analysis using a 3 year moving average for the last 25 years.
I'll give you a hint, a 3 year moving average over the last 25 years of CO2 doesn't point to an exponential increase of CO2 by 30%. In fact the yearly increase is less than 1% and the yearly chart of what the increase is looks an awful lot like the chart I posted of the stock market.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I'll give you a hint, a 3 year moving average over the last 25 years of CO2 doesn't point to an exponential increase of CO2 by 30%.

Why don't you just construct it and then talk ... and not before.

1 Reply

@Herald,

I'll give you the opportunity to tell us what you think the exponent is for a 3 year moving average. I'll give you a hint. It isn't .3 or even close .3 which would be required for it to be 30% increase

The data is here -
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

You shouldn't open your mouth and tell people to do something when you haven't done it yourself.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I'll give you the opportunity to tell us what you think the exponent is for a 3 year moving average.

FTWW, the definition of moving average is:

Wiki wrote:

In statistics, a moving average is a calculation to analyze data points by creating a series of averages of different subsets of the full data set. ...
Given a series of numbers and a fixed subset size, the first element of the moving average is obtained by taking the average of the initial fixed subset of the number series. Then the subset is modified by "shifting forward"; that is, excluding the first number of the series and including the next number following the original subset in the series. This creates a new subset of numbers, which is averaged. This process is repeated over the entire data series. The plot line connecting all the (fixed) averages is the moving average. A moving average is a set of numbers, each of which is the average of the corresponding subset of a larger set of datum points.

BTW the moving average predicts the trend, and it is compared with a greater moving average (the long term tendency) which is different from the function of approximation over the data set. You are talking about the function of approximation (from which you have conveniently skipped the last five years from 2011-2015). One starts wondering why should one skip the data from the last few years.

2 Replies

@Herald,

I didn't skip any data. Show us your numbers if you think they show a 30% annual increase as you claimed.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Here Herald. I'll make it really simple for you. Here is an online calculator that does exponential growth.

http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/exponential-growth-calculator.htm

Type in the starting CO2 number from 1959 - 315
Type in 30 for the % increase you claimed. - 30 (Notice the % sign already there so you are doing it wrong if you type in .3)
Type in 55 for the time in number of years. - 55

Press the Calculate button

Now tell us if it shows a number less than 400.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Here Herald. I'll make it really simple for you.

No, I will make it simple to you - either you find the function of approximation of all CO2 data ... up to Aug. 2015, incl. the data from the abandoned burning coal mines in the Gobi desert (990 ppm), and the CO2 calculation of the production of tar sands in Canada and Madagascar and the eco-impact of the tar oil produced ... or this is the end of that issue.
What are you publishing data from 1959 - why don't you publish in details the period 2000 - 2015? Why don't you explain what does average 408.94 ppm (Aug.2015) means, and how do you plan to reduce the annual CO2 in the air to 250 ppm in the near future? What capacity of CO2 processing facilities you will have to launch ... and when will be that ... when the **** hits the fan or when?

1 Reply

@Herald,

So because you can't get a simple answer right, you demand I provide complicated information or you win?

Quote:

What are you publishing data from 1959 - why don't you publish in details the period 2000 - 2015?

You now are reverting to using a 15 year period instead of a 25 year period? You are all over the map. My numbers are the yearly data from 1959 through 2014. You will notice if you look at a calendar that we don't have final data for 2015 yet. Why is including all the data from 1959- 2014 wrong? Why do you only want to include the small amounts of data that support your claim while ignoring all the other data that doesn't support your claim?

Rather than admit you were wrong, it seems you want to change the subject. I notice a rather obvious pattern here. You are often wrong. You often try to change the topic.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Here Herald. I'll make it really simple for you. Here is an online calculator that does exponential growth.

http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/exponential-growth-calculator.htm

Type in the starting CO2 number from 1959 - 315
Type in 30 for the % increase you claimed. - 30 (Notice the % sign already there so you are doing it wrong if you type in .3)
Type in 55 for the time in number of years. - 55

Press the Calculate button

Now tell us if it shows a number less than 400.

Tell us if it even shows a number less than 1000.

I guess, I will keep posting this until you admit that your 30% annual increase in CO2 claim is ridiculous.

1 Reply

@parados,

It stochastically goes to infinity. Stochastic.*

*Stochastic.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Whatever you think this means, it doesn't.

Why don't you simply tell which is the function of approximation of the data from the CO2 diagram.

2 Replies

@Herald,

what do you think that means? no one else has any idea what you mean. do you know what you mean?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Since you can't use a simple online calculator to admit that you are wrong then let's use Excel to graph the CO2 and add trend lines.

You can download the data in an excel spreadsheet here:
http://co2now.org/images/stories/data/co2-mlo-monthly-noaa-esrl.xls

Now one can take the data, chart it and add trend lines.

Highlight a column of data for any month. Go to Insert, line chart, 3d chart
Go to Layout, Trendline, Linear
Then go to Layout Trendline, Exponential

You will find that the linear trend is almost exactly the same as the exponential trend. That points to the increase being closer to a linear increase over time than an exponential one.

Anyone can do this. I urge anyone that questions which of us is correct to do it. I urge you to do it and come back and tell us the results and how you interpret them.

To make this even more interesting, let's graph the 3 year moving average.
select the data you want to create the moving average for. Click Data, Data Analysis. (You may have to install the free Analysis Tool Pack if you don't see it.) Select moving average. Select data input, set interval to 3, select an output cell. Click OK.

Now you can graph the 3 year moving average. Add the linear and exponential trend lines. Surprise. (or not). It looks exactly like the data without averaging.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

what do you think that means?

     Write in Google:
               function approximation
               data approximation
               approximation wiki
               approximation theory
     ... and you will see what you will see.

0 Replies

* Don't forget to throw in "stochastic" and "to infinity" a few dozen times! Laughing

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know