Re: November was 8th warmest on the 128-year NASA global record.

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:fc581570-ed94-454a-9290-16ba37c658eb@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> November was 8th warmest on the 128-year NASA global record.
>

Despite "exponentially rising atmospheric CO2 levels since 2000", global
mean temperature continues to fall since 1998

This is bad news for the AGW zealots.

They will have to hop onto some new "crusade" once global cooling really
sets in..


Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o******
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(Lux)]

"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:ySG7j.20893$xa2.19074@read2.cgocable.net...
> "Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
>> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
>> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
>> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
>> cooling tend proper.
>
> You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
> showing the
> increase in temperaure since 1998.
>
>
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>>
>>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
> "Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
>> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
>> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
>> Voodoo statistics!
>
> Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
> across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
> below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the
> crude
> nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that
> can
> be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance
> between
> the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.
>
> You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics
> in
> general aren't you Bonzo.
>
> Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
> how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
> to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds
> scientists.
>
> "Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
> school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
>
> Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
>
>
> "Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
>> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>>
>> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
>> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
>> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
>> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
>> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
>> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
>> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
>> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
>> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54
>
> No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
> best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
>
> 1998 14.57 *********************o******
> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
> 2001 14.48 ************************o
> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> In fact the equation is...
>
> o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))
>
> This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.
>
> So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?


At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of annual
temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any 'trend'
observed would be of limited value to either side), I feel compelled to draw
attention to a few things that you've omitted here:

1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the benefit
of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly) that
around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is explained
by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters of the
variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a simple
linear time trend).

2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this recent data
(using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
temperatures (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year compared
with the previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend signal
than the raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006. That
R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in annual
temperature change over this period is explained by the variation in time)
and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.

3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is clearly
ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger than the
one you've quoted above).

The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much confidence in
the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time period, but,
to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple statistics, it is
more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal present amongst all
that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.

;-)

[Ext User(Roger Coppock)]

Good post!

On Dec 12, 9:42 am, "Lux" <n...@home.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of annual
> temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any 'trend'
> observed would be of limited value to either side), I feel compelled to draw
> attention to a few things that you've omitted here:
>
> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the benefit
> of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly) that
> around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is explained
> by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters of the
> variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a simple
> linear time trend).
>
> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this recent data
> (using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
> temperatures (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year compared
> with the previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend signal
> than the raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006. That
> R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in annual
> temperature change over this period is explained by the variation in time)
> and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.
>
> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
> temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is clearly
> ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger than the
> one you've quoted above).

(You could also examine the statistical confidences.
that analysis would reinforce your case.)

>
> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much confidence in
> the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time period, but,
> to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple statistics, it is
> more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal present amongst all
> that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.
>
> ;-)

I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'

[Ext User(Roger Coppock)]

Good post!

On Dec 12, 9:42 am, "Lux" <n...@home.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of annual
> temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any 'trend'
> observed would be of limited value to either side), I feel compelled to draw
> attention to a few things that you've omitted here:
>
> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the benefit
> of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly) that
> around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is explained
> by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters of the
> variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a simple
> linear time trend).
>
> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this recent data
> (using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
> temperatures (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year compared
> with the previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend signal
> than the raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006. That
> R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in annual
> temperature change over this period is explained by the variation in time)
> and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.
>
> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
> temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is clearly
> ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger than the
> one you've quoted above).

(You could also examine the statistical confidences.
that analysis would reinforce your case.)

>
> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much confidence in
> the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time period, but,
> to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple statistics, it is
> more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal present amongst all
> that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.
>
> ;-)

I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:2bde1f72-4319-4fb5-a954-4a3a8bceb4ea@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Good post!
> On Dec 12, 9:42 am, "Lux" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of
>> annual
>> temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any 'trend'
>> observed would be of limited value to either side), I feel compelled
>> to draw
>> attention to a few things that you've omitted here:
>> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the
>> benefit
>> of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly)
>> that
>> around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is
>> explained
>> by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters of
>> the
>> variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a
>> simple
>> linear time trend).
>> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this
>> recent data
>> (using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
>> temperatures (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year
>> compared
>> with the previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend
>> signal
>> than the raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006.
>> That
>> R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in
>> annual
>> temperature change over this period is explained by the variation in
>> time)
>> and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.
>> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
>> temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is
>> clearly
>> ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger
>> than the
>> one you've quoted above).
> (You could also examine the statistical confidences.
> that analysis would reinforce your case.)
>> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much
>> confidence in
>> the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time
>> period, but,
>> to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple
>> statistics, it is
>> more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal present
>> amongst all
>> that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.
> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
>
> 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'


This is the typical sort of waffle you can expect to come from a
denialist for the coming global cooling!
He ignores the fact that the last ten years (1998-2007) of the past 30
years have shown a distinct cooling trend, so that his much touted
"global warming" has only been happening for the twenty years from 1977
to 1997.
So, by his own words, the twenty year warming from 1977 to 1997 is not
an established trend!
IOW, the cooling trend 1998-2007 is just as significant as the 20 year
warming trend 1977-1997!.


Say it again Roger!



Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(B0NZ0)]

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:b0a5776a-fde1-4939-a230-138923400cef@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Good post!
>
> On Dec 12, 9:42 am, "Lux" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of
>> annual
>> temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any 'trend'
>> observed would be of limited value to either side), I feel compelled
>> to draw
>> attention to a few things that you've omitted here:
>>
>> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the
>> benefit
>> of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly)
>> that
>> around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is
>> explained
>> by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters of
>> the
>> variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a
>> simple
>> linear time trend).
>>
>> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this
>> recent data
>> (using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
>> temperatures (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year
>> compared
>> with the previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend
>> signal
>> than the raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006.
>> That
>> R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in
>> annual
>> temperature change over this period is explained by the variation in
>> time)
>> and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.
>>
>> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
>> temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is
>> clearly
>> ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger
>> than the
>> one you've quoted above).
>
> (You could also examine the statistical confidences.
> that analysis would reinforce your case.)
>
>>
>> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much
>> confidence in
>> the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time
>> period, but,
>> to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple
>> statistics, it is
>> more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal present
>> amongst all
>> that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
> 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'
>

This is the typical sort of waffle you can expect to come from a
denialist for the coming global cooling!
He ignores the fact that the last ten years (1998-2007) of the past 30
years have shown a distinct cooling trend, so that his much touted
"global warming" has only been happening for the twenty years from 1977
to 1997.

So, by his own words, the twenty year warming from 1977 to 1997 is not
an established trend!

IOW, the cooling trend 1998-2007 is just as significant as the 20 year
warming trend 1977-1997!.

--


Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/

Regards
Bonzo

"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo


"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences


"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen


[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Ext User(Paul E. Lehmann)]

Roger Coppock wrote:

> Good post!
>
> On Dec 12, 9:42 am, "Lux" <n...@home.com> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> At the risk of wading into a slightly
>> meaningless debate (9 years of annual
>> temperature data is likely to contain so much
>> noise that any 'trend' observed would be of
>> limited value to either side), I feel compelled
>> to draw attention to a few things that you've
>> omitted here:
>>
>> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is
>> just 0.2542. For the benefit of those without
>> any statistical background, that means
>> (roughly) that around *one quarter* of the
>> observed variation in temperature is explained
>> by the variation in time (or equivalently,
>> around three quarters of the variation in raw
>> temperatures in this data cannot be explained
>> by a simple linear time trend).
>>
>> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be
>> obtainable from this recent data (using linear
>> least squares method) is for the differences in
>> annual temperatures (or trend _change_ in
>> annual temperature each year compared with the
>> previous year, which provides a potentially
>> stronger trend signal than the raw temperature
>> outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006. That
>> R-squared is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third*
>> of the variation in annual temperature change
>> over this period is explained by the variation
>> in time) and has a coefficient of MINUS 0.03.
>>
>> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above,
>> that shows a trend temperature change of MINUS
>> 151.5'C over the next Century (which is clearly
>> ridiculous, but the statistical strength of
>> that trend is stronger than the one you've
>> quoted above).
>
> (You could also examine the statistical
> confidences. that analysis would reinforce your
> case.)
>
>>
>> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one
>> cannot have much confidence in the robustness
>> of any underlying trend in this very short time
>> period, but, to the extent that a trend might
>> be discerned using simple statistics, it is
>> more likely, based on the strongest statistical
>> signal present amongst all that noise, to be
>> down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said
> many times, 'It takes about three decades to
> establish a climate trend.'

And as long as I can remember, a YEAR is longer
than a month - then multiply that by your magical
30 YEARS and you should see the extreme
insignificance of a MONTH.

[Ext User(Peter Franks)]

Roger Coppock wrote:
> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
> 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'

And it takes two years to start a trend.

[Ext User(Roger Coppock)]

On Dec 13, 10:04 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
> > 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'
>
> And it takes two years to start a trend.

Your local junior college or adult education
center may have a course in statistics.
Sign up, and show up for it. Then you'll
realize how completely silly your statement
about 2 year trends is.

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o******
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(Peter Franks)]

Roger Coppock wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:04 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
>>> 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'
>> And it takes two years to start a trend.
>
> Your local junior college or adult education
> center may have a course in statistics.
> Sign up, and show up for it. Then you'll
> realize how completely silly your statement
> about 2 year trends is.

Are you disputing my statement?

Do you dispute my statement (made elsewhere) that we are in a four year
trend of November cooling?

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> Lies:
> Sorry to expose your lies Popcock (not really!), but temperatures have
> plateaued since 1998 DESPITE soaring CO2 levels.
> Actually the globe has cooled a little since then and is now starting a
> cooling tend proper.

You are a Habitual Liar Bonzo. Here is the temperature data and a plot
showing the
increase in temperaure since 1998.


"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.62 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.

You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo" <boozoo@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54

No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57 *********************o******
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.62 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

In fact the equation is...

o = 14.42 + (0.0195 *(YEAR-1998))

This shows a trend of 2'C (3.5'F) per century.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> At the risk of wading into a slightly meaningless debate (9 years of
> annual temperature data is likely to contain so much noise that any
> 'trend' observed would be of limited value to either side)

I agree. But then I didn't claim that the above data showed that the
Earth was cooling. Lying Denialists did.


> 1. The R-squared for your "up, Up, UP" trend is just 0.2542. For the
> benefit of those without any statistical background, that means (roughly)
> that around *one quarter* of the observed variation in temperature is
> explained by the variation in time (or equivalently, around three quarters
> of the variation in raw temperatures in this data cannot be explained by a
> simple linear time trend).

Yup. One quarter of the Increase.



"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> 2. The highest R-squared that appears to be obtainable from this recent
> data (using linear least squares method) is for the differences in annual
> temperatures

Which would be the speed at which the change is occurring.

You wouldn't be about to confuse speed with position now would you?

"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> (or trend _change_ in annual temperature each year compared with the
> previous year, which provides a potentially stronger trend signal than the
> raw temperature outcomes) in the period from 2001 to 2006. That R-squared
> is 0.3244 (i.e., around *one third* of the variation in annual temperature
> change over this period is explained by the variation in time) and has a
> coefficient of MINUS 0.03.

Yup, I see you are stupid enough to confuse the speed of change with the
change itself.

Here is the original time series and the differences

14.57
14.33 -2.4
14.33 0
14.48 .15
14.56 .08
14.55 -.01
14.49 -.06
14.62 .13
14.54 -.08

Performing a linear regression on the differences a slope of .1925 is
obtained.
Correlation coefficient = .54622

<POSITIVE> not negative as you claim.

And over 100 years the acceleration produces a temperature increase of 972'C

But then you are computing a rate of change of a rate of change, (an
acceleration), so the final error explodes by squaring.



"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> 3. Using your extrapolation methodology above, that shows a trend
> temperature change of MINUS 151.5'C over the next Century (which is
> clearly ridiculous, but the statistical strength of that trend is stronger
> than the one you've quoted above).

Wrong again. The correlation coefficients are essentially identical.


"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> The conclusion to be drawn here is that one cannot have much confidence in
> the robustness of any underlying trend in this very short time period,

I agree. But then I'm not the one claiming that over the years in
question, there is a cooling trend.


"Lux" <not@home.com> wrote
> but, to the extent that a trend might be discerned using simple
> statistics, it is more likely, based on the strongest statistical signal
> present amongst all that noise, to be down, Down, DOwn, DOWn, DOWN.

Sorry, even the differences show an upward trend. of .19'C per year per
year.

It's Up, Up, Up......

Get your calculator fixed. Shit Stick....

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote
> And it takes two years to start a trend.

This year I flip heads. The next tails.

What's the trend? Dirt Bag.

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote
> Do you dispute my statement (made elsewhere) that we are in a four year
> trend of November cooling?

I am.

2004 temp anomply 14.75
2005 temp anomply 14.76
2006 temp anomply 14.74
2006 temp anomply 14.64

14.76 - 14.75 = .01 (an increase)

You do know the difference between an increase and a decrease don't you?
Shit Sucker...

[Ext User(V-for-Vendicar)]

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote
> I could not agree any more, Lux! As I've said many times,
> 'It takes about three decades to establish a climate trend.'

Yup. So this claim of a cooling trend is nothing more than a lie.