Paper: CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Well again "adding variety" is not Merit based. It may sound good but is it really "good"?  Wouldn't we all be better off if the Asians that are better at Math get admitted to Math on merit as opposed to rejecting more Asians to admit minorities that are not as adept in that subject simply for the feel good notion of "diversity"? 

You missed the point.  Variety is added so that regular (American) students get a broader education.  I know a whole lot about Nepal that I didn't know before I met those Nepalese students.  I learned a lot about Shanghai from a Chinese student and I made some changes in data collection as a result of taking a Brazilian student along on a research trip.  There's a professor here who is about to retire who has been doing research in Turkey and Malaysia for most of his career as a result of people he met in grad school.

A state university has to take anybody with a high school diploma or GED.  That is considered "merit" because people without those credentials don't get admitted - no matter what race they are or where they're from.  For Land Grant universities, all admissions are merit-based.

After admission, a student has to keep his/her grades high enough to avoid academic dismissal.  That would be "merit-based."

Doug

[Doug1029]

24 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

And why is that? Those kids born in that region of the country are inferior? 

Or is it more likely that Oklahoma has a very poor School system, which a poor curiculum, and there is very little incintive for young intellectuals to become poorly paid Teachers?

Not inferior kids - inferior education.  You can't provide a decent education for your people with an oil depletion tax of only 2%.  You can't provide a quality education if you give all the money to the already-wealthy campaign donors.

27 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

What if we spent all that money on Americans? Or are you suggesting Americans are intellectually inferior? 

The Nepalese students attended high school in their home towns.  They moved to Katmandu (Nepal's only university) for their undergrad work.  The Nepalese government paid their way to grad school in the US.  That money belongs to the Nepalese government.  It's not American money.  WE don't have the right to spend it on anything.

Same with the Brazilian students, except that the money is put up by their families, rather than the government.  Again, it's not our money.  If they weren't here, their money wouldn't be here either.

The Iraqi student's education (Ph.D. level) was mostly paid for by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  He lost the funding before he was able to finish.  He got a research grant and was able to finish and has worked for the US govt ever since.  Good deal when you can get your enemy to pay for training your techno-war experts.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

33 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

But what do you do when the tree is not round?

But you just said you could use a tape? 

If it's not "round",... you just said you could use a caliper didn't you? If the Tree is an Ellipses  and you are using a Caliper then you are not measuring the "diameter", you are measuring the approximate Major A axis. 

Now most things are not exactly round but close enough to not bother considering them as ellipsis. However if something like a Tree looks like an Oval, then P= pi  [3(A+B) - sqrt ((3A+B) + (A+3B))]  This will give you a Perimeter or circumference which can then be related to a circular object with a Radius.

[lost_shaman]

33 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You missed the point.  Variety is added so that regular (American) students get a broader education. 

Nonsense. Instead of paying non citizens to comes here to benefit and displace American students, why don't we spend that money to send merit based financially challenged American students to study at nice universities overseas? 

Edited December 11, 2017 by lost_shaman

[lost_shaman]

41 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

A state university has to take anybody with a high school diploma or GED.  That is considered "merit" because people without those credentials don't get admitted - no matter what race they are or where they're from.  For Land Grant universities, all admissions are merit-based.

You are are 100% wrong! In 1994 I applied for a PALE Grant to attend the local Junior College to get some basic credits and was rejected because I was White. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by lost_shaman

[lost_shaman]

28 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Not inferior kids - inferior education.  You can't provide a decent education for your people with an oil depletion tax of only 2%.  You can't provide a quality education if you give all the money to the already-wealthy campaign donors.

Well go to the Supreme Court. Texas has had to defend itself over and over in regards to Education funding and guess what we still do just fine compared to other States.

 

[lost_shaman]

On 12/9/2017 at 1:05 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Oklahoma has you tied in the temperature records.  Seymour, TX posted 120 degrees on August 12, 1936.  Quanan, TX recorded 119 degrees the same day; McKinney, TX - 118 degrees on August 10; Mount Pleasant - 118; Clarendon, TX 117 on August 12, 1936; Graham, TX 117 on August 11; Memphis, TX 117 on August 13.  Do you live in any of these?

I live in Vernon. Our record was 117 F in my lifetime, so in the last 40 years. Why didn't you mention that? 

[lost_shaman]

Quote

Doug says this on Friday.

#115

 Oklahoma is likely to become one of those places.  Most people do not have air conditioning and will thus have no way to escape.

 

Quote

 

Doug say this on Saturday.  

#128  

In the US, particularly in Texas and Oklahoma, nearly everybody has air conditioners.

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by lost_shaman

[Derek Willis]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I am not a modeler.  My work mostly looks at past situations.  My contributions to date have included an ice storm signature in tree rings.  I can detect the signature of a three-hour ice storm that happened 180 years ago.  I have an idea of how to measure actual temperatures and precipitations for selected storms using false rings in eastern red-cedar.  Just now I'm working on the phenology of post oaks vs. eastern red-cedar to see if I can figure out how eastern red-cedar manages to out-compete post oak.  I can read past climate changes in tree rings and can see temperature rise in them.  But this is all in the past.  I can tell you what the climate did yesterday, or 300 years ago, but not tomorrow.  I have to leave that to others.

So if you'd like to talk about tree rings - that is what I'd rather do, anyway.

Doug

Yes, and you seem to blindly trust in their models and predictions. In the same way politicians blindly trust in the models and predictions of economists. Except they don't really. They know economists's predictions are guesses disguised as science. It is interesting how politicians, economists, and climate change scientists all seem to work together to create an impression that they know what they are talking about. John Christy gave you an equation which you whole-heartedly believed in. Except now his "constant" is no longer a constant, and so his equation is reduced to a guess ...  

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

But you just said you could use a tape? 

If it's not "round",... you just said you could use a caliper didn't you? If the Tree is an Ellipses  and you are using a Caliper then you are not measuring the "diameter", you are measuring the approximate Major A axis. 

Now most things are not exactly round but close enough to not bother considering them as ellipsis. However if something like a Tree looks like an Oval, then P= pi  [3(A+B) - sqrt ((3A+B) + (A+3B))]  This will give you a Perimeter or circumference which can then be related to a circular object with a Radius.

In forest inventory the tree is usually assumed to be round, unless there is an obvious eccentricity.  With a caliper one measures the long dimension, then the short one and averages the two.  The big problem is a massive scar, like a fire scar.  Then the tree is neither round, nor ellipsoid.  In USFS inventories, the cruiser pulls the tape out to where he thinks the bark would have come to.  If that produces an error (almost guaranteed), it is "slabbed off."  In milling a log, sawmills first cut off a slab to produce a flat surface.  That slab comes from the "bad" side of the log - the fire scar.  So if there's an error, it gets cut off in milling.

Dendrometers either estimate diameter like a D-tape by measuring the circumference, or measure the arc the tree tapes up on the horizon and convert that to a diameter estimate.  There are high-tech dendrometers out there that can do all the calculations and have the estimate ready before you can blink.  When I first started cruising, we carried trig tables with us so we could do the arithmetic on paper in the field.

Doug

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Nonsense. Instead of paying non citizens to comes here to benefit and displace American students, why don't we spend that money to send merit based financially challenged American students to study at nice universities overseas? 

Since when do we pay non-citizens to come here?  Exceptional foreign students may get a scholarship, but most have to make other arrangements.  And even scholarships may not be very big and usually come with conditions, like working in a lab or working for a big company.  The companies use that as a recruiting tool, taking the "best and brightest" of foreign students.  These then work for the company, either in America or in their home countries - making money for American companies either way.

But most foreign students have to pay their own way.

As a matter of fact, we do spend money to send "financially challenged" students to study abroad.  That's how my daughter was able to spend six months in Russia.  The University of Tulsa sends a whole contingent to Russia every other year.  Most of these programs depend on a teacher with foreign connections - usually somebody who came here to get an education.  Our department has regular trips to South America - the Andes - handled by a prof (He was born and raised in Oklahoma.) with friends in South America.  Colorado State had a large group of Mexican students, paid for by the Mexican government - enough that the university hired a special prof to handle them - paid for by Mexico.  That prof was my major professor for my Masters.

Doug

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You are are 100% wrong! In 1994 I applied for a PALE Grant to attend the local Junior College to get some basic credits and was rejected because I was White. 

Texas may do things differently.  But in Oklahoma, the university HAS to admit you.  What it does with you after you get admitted is another question.  Freshman English, among others, is run as a "flunk out" class.  It is supposed to eliminate those who aren't ready to do college work.

If your local junior college is in Texas, it is not a land grant university.  Texas, having owned its lands as an independent country and not being part of the compromise that created the Constitution (It came along too late to get in on that.), does not have land grant universities and does not come under their governing laws.  OSU, on the other hand, is built on land reserved for it by Congress.  Most of the campus has never had a private owner.  It is governed by the various land grant acts.

But don't feel bad.  In 1972 I applied for a forestry technician job with Idaho Department of Public Lands.  After the interview, one of the interviewers whom I knew from earlier, took me aside and explained that I wouldn't get the job because I was male, had a forestry degree, spoke English fluently and my name wasn't Rodriguez.  I asked for an explanation.  He said the job was created only help the State of Idaho fulfill its Equal Opportunity requirements, so they couldn't hire a majority person to fill the position.  They never found a qualified individual, so never filled the job.

Doug

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Well go to the Supreme Court. Texas has had to defend itself over and over in regards to Education funding and guess what we still do just fine compared to other States.

Funding for your schools is mostly up to your legislature and your local citizens.  The Federal government does help states that don't have land grant universities, but I don't know the details.

When the original land grants were made, the granted sections were sometimes already owned or in use by somebody else (Fort Supply was on what should have been school land.).  To compensate the states for this, the Feds allowed other lands to be substituted.  Most western states (except Nevada) still have tens of thousands of acres in land claims against the Federal government that have never been settled.  In lieu of settling these, the Feds pay land rental to the states.  This money goes into the state school trust funds.  States without land grants do not get to share in this money.  This appears unfair to them and they have often challenged it.

There are lots of problems with the old land grants and surveys - we still don't know exactly where the line between Oklahoma and Texas is.

I don't know if this is why Texas went to court, or for some other reason.  But if one believes in law and order...  Well, this is the law.

Doug

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

 

Most people in Texas and Oklahoma have air conditioners.  Most people in the rest of the world do not, particularly in places like the Sudan and Mali.  Did I take that turn a little too fast for you?  Texas isn't the only place on earth, you know.

Doug

Edited December 11, 2017 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Yes, and you seem to blindly trust in their models and predictions. In the same way politicians blindly trust in the models and predictions of economists. Except they don't really. They know economists's predictions are guesses disguised as science. It is interesting how politicians, economists, and climate change scientists all seem to work together to create an impression that they know what they are talking about. John Christy gave you an equation which you whole-heartedly believed in. Except now his "constant" is no longer a constant, and so his equation is reduced to a guess ...  

You misunderstood.  Christy's equation is supposed to replace the climate constant.  But is it the right equation?  It doesn't seem to produce real-world results that are consistent enough to use.

People are working on replacements for the climate constant and the results will be published in due course.  Christy's paper has all the earmarks of one that was submitted for publication and was rejected.  Why it was rejected is anybody's guess.  It may be nothing more than he submitted it to a journal that specialized in something else, or didn't have space.  Or it may have failed peer review.  Papers usually fail peer review because they are badly written, but mistakes in the logic or in carrying out the experiment sometimes result in failure.  We don't know for sure that the paper even went through peer review.

He could have submitted the paper to a different journal - there are thousands of them out there.  If he had a valid idea, that's what he should have done.  Why didn't he do it?

Or, he may have submitted it to many different journals and none of them wanted to publish it.  So he gave up and self-published.  I may do that with one of my own, but I've only had one rejection and that was without peer review.  So I've got a ways to go before I give up.  But if I do, I'm admitting that my project wasn't of high enough quality for publication.

Now that he has self-published, no professional journal will be interested - he can't give them a secure copyright.  That is an amateur mistake and reason to be suspicious of anything that is in that paper - what other stupid mistake might he have made?

Doug

Edited December 11, 2017 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

17 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I have to say I don't have a great deal of interest in the details of climate change science. The underlying physics is sound - at least for relatively simple systems. What I am suspicious of is the application of the basic equations to more complex systems. Climate change science reminds me of economics. All those professors with their models and predictions. However, there are so many variables - and some with unpredictable sensitivities - that making accurate forecasts is essentially impossible. That is the nature of higher order differential equations; and the compromises made by climate change modelers to represent the equations with algorithms seem shrouded in mystery. I sometimes listen to those economic professors who now claim they all predicted the crash of 2007/8 - but strangely didn't say anything at the time. I have the same feelings towards climate change predictions. Especially so when a constant isn't, well, constant. What kind of "science" is that? The fact that you can change you opinion so markedly in a few months seems to me to indicate it is a science based on shifting sands.

I just realized something:  you didn't know what the climate constant was.  I was "explaining" something to you with a concept you couldn't understand.  Sorry about that.

Doug

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

 

I explained this in the last paragraph of Post 128.  You apparently missed it.  But then, I did observe that you can't (or at least don't) read.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

22 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I just realized something:  you didn't know what the climate constant was.  I was "explaining" something to you with a concept you couldn't understand.  Sorry about that.

Doug

Oh dear. Here we go with the intellectual condescension typical of human climate change "priests". That coming from someone who didn't know the difference between a logarithm and a logarithmic function, and who has a strange definition of what an equation is, comes across as a bit silly.

Like I said above, I have no real interest in the details of climate change science. You mentioned the "climate constant" and Christy's equation. I assumed the constant was a term in the equation, because lots of equations have constants in them, you know.

My apologies for displaying such ignorance.

Edit: Perhaps you could clarify the situation. Christy's equation replaces the climate constant. I assume that was because the climate constant was an unsatisfactory method for making predictions. But you are now saying Christy's equation is also an unsatisfactory method. Hey, if you lot keep at it you will eventually get there!

Edited December 11, 2017 by Derek Willis

[Doug1029]

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You are are 100% wrong! In 1994 I applied for a PALE Grant to attend the local Junior College to get some basic credits and was rejected because I was White. 

What is a PALE grant?  I haven't heard of that one before.

The PELL grant is part of the Federal government's student aide program.  I don't believe there are any racial requirements on it, but I might be wrong.  Many states offer support at the undergrad level and there are more of these programs than I can count.  Does Texas have one by the name of PALE?  Or is that just a way to say Pell with a Texas accent?

Doug

[Doug1029]

54 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Oh dear. Here we go with the intellectual condescension typical of human climate change "priests". That coming from someone who didn't know the difference between a logarithm and a logarithmic function, and who has a strange definition of what an equation is, comes across as a bit silly.

Like I said above, I have no real interest in the details of climate change science. You mentioned the "climate constant" and Christy's equation. I assumed the constant was a term in the equation, because lots of equations have constants in them, you know.

My apologies for displaying such ignorance.

Edit: Perhaps you could clarify the situation. Christy's equation replaces the climate constant. I assume that was because the climate constant was an unsatisfactory method for making predictions. But you are now saying Christy's equation is also an unsatisfactory method. Hey, if you lot keep at it you will eventually get there!

Sorry.  I didn't mean to sound condescending.

We seem to have a communication problem.  From where I sit, your understanding of the math doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I am getting frustrated with your inability to understand what I'm saying.  Is that your fault for not reading carefully, or mine for not communicating clearly, or maybe a little of both?  Apparently we come from different backgrounds.

I use equations statistically.  That is, I try to fit datasets to them, finding the values for particular coefficients that allow the equation to best represent the data.  That's what Christy did to determine the 2.94 and 233.6 values.  We speak in a sort of shorthand.  A "logarithm" is a logarthmic function (Actually, a whole bunch of similar functions.  "Equation" and "function" are used interchangeably.  There are dozens of "logistics (logistic functions)."  The term "asymptote" applies to an equation that decelerates as X increases, approaching a limit, but never reaching it (variation ignored).  That is what Christy's equations does.  So it is an asymptote.  It contains a logarthmic function, but that doesn't change the fact that it approaches a line without ever reaching it.

Christy's equation, if correct, will not replace the climate constant, but it may have a major effect on it.  The entire idea of a constant will probably have to be reconsidered regardless of Christy.  If one uses a simple ratio of temperature rise to CO2 concentration, one gets some very high results.  That's what my original statements were based on - results published in 2005 by James Hansen (I assumed you would be familiar with his work.).  Christy's equation is at odds with that.  As I demonstrated, it doesn't do very good in the real world.  There could be lots of reasons for that - albedo, CO2, other pollutants like sulfates and CFCs.  And the results could differ because of other variables like polar ice cover and time of year.  To be applied in the real world, Christy's model will need lots of terms added to it.

And like you say:  if we keep at it, we'll eventually get there.  That is what science does.  We look to the future.

Even I, who spend my time looking at the past, will make discoveries in the future.

Doug

 

[Derek Willis]

38 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Sorry.  I didn't mean to sound condescending.

We seem to have a communication problem.  From where I sit, your understanding of the math doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  I am getting frustrated with your inability to understand what I'm saying.  Is that your fault for not reading carefully, or mine for not communicating clearly, or maybe a little of both?  Apparently we come from different backgrounds.

I use equations statistically.  That is, I try to fit datasets to them, finding the values for particular coefficients that allow the equation to best represent the data.  That's what Christy did to determine the 2.94 and 233.6 values.  We speak in a sort of shorthand.  A "logarithm" is a logarthmic function (Actually, a whole bunch of similar functions.  "Equation" and "function" are used interchangeably.  There are dozens of "logistics (logistic functions)."  The term "asymptote" applies to an equation that decelerates as X increases, approaching a limit, but never reaching it (variation ignored).  That is what Christy's equations does.  So it is an asymptote.  It contains a logarthmic function, but that doesn't change the fact that it approaches a line without ever reaching it.

Christy's equation, if correct, will not replace the climate constant, but it may have a major effect on it.  The entire idea of a constant will probably have to be reconsidered regardless of Christy.  If one uses a simple ratio of temperature rise to CO2 concentration, one gets some very high results.  That's what my original statements were based on - results published in 2005 by James Hansen (I assumed you would be familiar with his work.).  Christy's equation is at odds with that.  As I demonstrated, it doesn't do very good in the real world.  There could be lots of reasons for that - albedo, CO2, other pollutants like sulfates and CFCs.  And the results could differ because of other variables like polar ice cover and time of year.  To be applied in the real world, Christy's model will need lots of terms added to it.

And like you say:  if we keep at it, we'll eventually get there.  That is what science does.  We look to the future.

Even I, who spend my time looking at the past, will make discoveries in the future.

Doug

 

Well, I am totally confused here. In # 165 you wrote: "Christy's equation is supposed to replace the climate constant." Yet now you write: "Christy's equation, if correct, will not replace the climate constant, but may have a major effect on it"

Is it any wonder I am totally confused when you yet again make contradictory statements?

I studied physics and astronomy at university, so have a smattering of mathematics. In the mathematics used in all the sciences, a logarithm and a logarithmic function are related, but are not the same thing. But in climate science you abbreviate "logarithmic function" to "logarithm". If that is the case, when you want to refer to a logarithm, what do climate scientists say? For instance, if you were at a dinner party with a mathematician, physicist or astronomer and they tell you the joke about the logarithm that came into a bar, would you think he/she was talking about a logarithmic function rather than a logarithm? Why not just do what all the other scientists do and abbreviate the terms to "log" and "log function". Please forgive me if I don't sound too convinced by your explanation ... 

Yes, I did mention earlier that "equation" and "function" essentially mean the same thing. There is a difference, but it's not really important in this context.

In an asymptotic function the graph of the function approaches an asymptote. But, of course, you climate scientists just love to mess about with definitions!

In physics (or chemistry or whatever) the usual process is to plot the data and then derive the function that matches the line. Not the other way round. Some amazing physics has been done this way. For instance Henry Moseley plotted the data he acquired from the charges on nuclei. By doing that, he was able to derive the function and determine the charge is related to the atomic number and not the atomic mass. If he had tried to do it the other way round he would still be at it now (except he was sadly killed during the First World War). But again, you climate scientists just love to mess around with orthodoxy!

I have to say this has been a revelation to me. You have your own mathematics language and you don't do science like any one else. Amazing!

Edit: spelling mistake 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Derek Willis

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Well, I am totally confused here. In # 165 you wrote: "Christy's equation is supposed to replace the climate constant." Yet now you write: "Christy's equation, if correct, will not replace the climate constant, but may have a major effect on it"

Is it any wonder I am totally confused when you yet again make contradictory statements?

My mistake.  Didn't speak clearly.  It appears to be Christy's intent that his equation replace the climate constant.  But I think he realizes it will need extensive modifications to do that.  So while it is supposed (by Christy) to replace the climate constant, it cannot do that because it does not suffice to predict temps accurately.  At least in American parlance, "supposed to" do something implies that the job isn't getting done.

Where are you from?  I seem to be seeing a different set of meanings between your writing and mine?

Doug

[Doug1029]

21 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I studied physics and astronomy at university, so have a smattering of mathematics. In the mathematics used in all the sciences, a logarithm and a logarithmic function are related, but are not the same thing. But in climate science you abbreviate "logarithmic function" to "logarithm". If that is the case, when you want to refer to a logarithm, what do climate scientists say? For instance, if you were at a dinner party with a mathematician, physicist or astronomer and they tell you the joke about the logarithm that came into a bar, would you think he/she was talking about a logarithmic function rather than a logarithm? Why not just do what all the other scientists do and abbreviate the terms to "log" and "log function". Please forgive me if I don't sound too convinced by your explanation ... 

Yes, I did mention earlier that "equation" and "function" essentially mean the same thing. There is a difference, but it's not really important in this context.

In an asymptotic function the graph of the function approaches an asymptote. But, of course, you climate scientists just love to mess about with definitions!

In physics (or chemistry or whatever) the usual process is to plot the data and then derive the function that matches the line. Not the other way round. Some amazing physics has been done this way. For instance Henry Moseley plotted the data he acquired from the charges on nuclei. By doing that, he was able to derive the function and determine the charge is related to the atomic number and not the atomic mass. If he had tried to do it the other way round he would still be at it now (except he was sadly killed during the First World War). But again, you climate scientists just love to mess around with orthodoxy!

I have to say this has been a revelation to me. You have your own mathematics language and you don't do science like any one else. Amazing!

The shorthand version would be used around the water cooler.  In a formal paper, one uses the standard definitions.

Even with everything plotted in front of you, you still have to pick an equation to plug into the program.  And sometimes you get a poor fit, even then.

I have run so many detrendings that I just automatically use a transformed negative logarithm.  It works nearly every time.  If it doesn't, I have to hunt around for something else.

And a little less condescension on your part wouldn't hurt, either.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

10 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

My mistake.  Didn't speak clearly.  It appears to be Christy's intent that his equation replace the climate constant.  But I think he realizes it will need extensive modifications to do that.  So while it is supposed (by Christy) to replace the climate constant, it cannot do that because it does not suffice to predict temps accurately.  At least in American parlance, "supposed to" do something implies that the job isn't getting done.

Where are you from?  I seem to be seeing a different set of meanings between your writing and mine?

Doug

I am from the UK. I can see how the nuances can lead to differing interpretations. I do now see what you mean. However, to go back to my point, if the climate constant failed to make accurate predictions, and now Christy's equation is also failing to make accurate predictions, you climate scientists really need to come up with something that works. 

[Derek Willis]

15 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The shorthand version would be used around the water cooler.  In a formal paper, one uses the standard definitions.

Even with everything plotted in front of you, you still have to pick an equation to plug into the program.  And sometimes you get a poor fit, even then.

I have run so many detrendings that I just automatically use a transformed negative logarithm.  It works nearly every time.  If it doesn't, I have to hunt around for something else.

And a little less condescension on your part wouldn't hurt, either.

Doug

No, you have to find an equation/function that matches the data. Doing it the other way round leads to suspicion from people like me. That is, you already have the outcome you want. Fourier Analysis is what you need. Any curve can be broken down into simpler curves, and then a good approximation of the form of the function can be integrated.

Edit: I agree with your last comment!  

Edited December 11, 2017 by Derek Willis