On 6/15/10 10:52 PM, in article
, "Roger
Coppock" wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:35*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
[ . . . ] the relationship between CO2 concentration
and global temperature only /loosely/ correlates, if you even call it
correlation.

WRONG, MR. FRANKS, JUST PLAIN WRONG!
You're making up your own facts, again. *There
is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures. *Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg

No need to create a new thread, Mr. Coppock. *The original thread is
still on-topic, please reference that for my response.

So, I caught you in a lie,

Ø No Copycock, YOU are the liar.
BTW your site is not a valid reference.
Remember you still have not proved "the very
strong correlation between CO2 and global
mean surface temperatures".

It is all fictitious.

On Jun 15, 8:38*pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
* * Remember you still have not proved "the very
* * strong correlation between CO2 and global
* * mean surface temperatures".

I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
=-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-=
The CO2 data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The global mean temperature data are the GISS adjusted
J-D yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

Year Temp CO2
1958 14.08 315.33
1959 14.06 315.98
1960 13.99 316.91
1961 14.08 317.64
1962 14.04 318.45
1963 14.08 318.99
1964 13.79 319.20
1965 13.89 320.04
1966 13.97 321.38
1967 14.00 322.16
1968 13.96 323.04
1969 14.08 324.62
1970 14.03 325.68
1971 13.90 326.32
1972 14.00 327.45
1973 14.14 329.68
1974 13.92 330.17
1975 13.96 331.13
1976 13.84 332.05
1977 14.13 333.78
1978 14.01 335.41
1979 14.09 336.78
1980 14.18 338.68
1981 14.26 340.11
1982 14.05 341.22
1983 14.26 342.84
1984 14.09 344.22
1985 14.05 345.87
1986 14.13 347.19
1987 14.26 348.98
1988 14.31 351.45
1989 14.20 352.90
1990 14.38 354.16
1991 14.35 355.48
1992 14.13 356.27
1993 14.14 356.95
1994 14.23 358.64
1995 14.38 360.63
1996 14.29 362.37
1997 14.40 363.47
1998 14.56 366.50
1999 14.32 368.15
2000 14.33 369.40
2001 14.48 371.07
2002 14.56 373.17
2003 14.55 375.78
2004 14.49 377.52
2005 14.63 379.76
2006 14.54 381.85
2007 14.57 383.71
2008 14.43 385.57
2009 14.57 387.35

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

On Jun 15, 8:38*pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]

* * Remember you still have not proved "the very
* * strong correlation between CO2 and global
* * mean surface temperatures".

I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

The least-squares linear regression value shows indeed a very
strong signal-to-noise ratio. As atmospheric CO2 increased, global
temperature increased. The trend is sub-linear and statistically
significant.

Alarmist nutcases like "Leonard" just hate the fact that
scientists know what they are doing and publish their findings
even when those findings are politically incorrect.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/TempVsCO2.jpg
=-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-=
The CO2 data are the yearly averages of the monthly data
from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The global mean temperature data are the GISS adjusted
J-D yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

I plotted the data and calculated the R^2 values. The Goodness Of
Fit correlation is strong enough to show causation with a noice
value of about 20%. The temperature anomaly we currently observe
is likely 80% due to CO2 and 20% due to other causes. Just five
years ago it was 70% and 30% respectively.

Year Temp CO2
1958 14.08 315.33
1959 14.06 315.98
1960 13.99 316.91
1961 14.08 317.64
1962 14.04 318.45
1963 14.08 318.99
1964 13.79 319.20
1965 13.89 320.04
1966 13.97 321.38
1967 14.00 322.16
1968 13.96 323.04
1969 14.08 324.62
1970 14.03 325.68
1971 13.90 326.32
1972 14.00 327.45
1973 14.14 329.68
1974 13.92 330.17
1975 13.96 331.13
1976 13.84 332.05
1977 14.13 333.78
1978 14.01 335.41
1979 14.09 336.78
1980 14.18 338.68
1981 14.26 340.11
1982 14.05 341.22
1983 14.26 342.84
1984 14.09 344.22
1985 14.05 345.87
1986 14.13 347.19
1987 14.26 348.98
1988 14.31 351.45
1989 14.20 352.90
1990 14.38 354.16
1991 14.35 355.48
1992 14.13 356.27
1993 14.14 356.95
1994 14.23 358.64
1995 14.38 360.63
1996 14.29 362.37
1997 14.40 363.47
1998 14.56 366.50
1999 14.32 368.15
2000 14.33 369.40
2001 14.48 371.07
2002 14.56 373.17
2003 14.55 375.78
2004 14.49 377.52
2005 14.63 379.76
2006 14.54 381.85
2007 14.57 383.71
2008 14.43 385.57
2009 14.57 387.35


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

On 6/17/10 8:44 AM, in article
, "Roger
Coppock" wrote:

On Jun 15, 8:38*pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
* * Remember you still have not proved "the very
* * strong correlation between CO2 and global
* * mean surface temperatures".

I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Ø That is an admission of your total ignorance
of the subject

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

Ø Your documentation is worthless,
based on worthless statistics

‹‹*‹‹
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

the anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
Remember you still have not proved "the very
strong correlation between CO2 and global
mean surface temperatures".

I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures.

Please post the correlation from 1998 to present.

Overlay that with correlation from 1958-1998.

Let's compare.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:51:27 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
Remember you still have not proved "the very
strong correlation between CO2 and global
mean surface temperatures".

I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures.

Please post the correlation from 1998 to present.
Overlay that with correlation from 1958-1998.
Let's compare.

See my video, where I did just that.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Desertphile wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:51:27 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
Remember you still have not proved "the very
strong correlation between CO2 and global
mean surface temperatures".
I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures.

Please post the correlation from 1998 to present.
Overlay that with correlation from 1958-1998.
Let's compare.

See my video, where I did just that.

Where?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:54:33 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Desertphile wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:51:27 -0700, Peter Franks
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:38 pm, Leonard wrote:
[ . . . ]
Remember you still have not proved "the very
strong correlation between CO2 and global
mean surface temperatures".
I don't know what you're saying, Leonard.

Probably, that is because you don't know what you're saying
or that you don't have the language skills to communicate it.

The 0.79 correlation I've documented between atmospheric
CO2 concentration and global mean surface temperatures
is strong.

TO REPEAT MY LEAD POST IN THIS THREAD:
There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and
global mean surface temperatures.

Please post the correlation from 1998 to present.
Overlay that with correlation from 1958-1998.
Let's compare.

See my video, where I did just that.

Where?

Channel Desertphile.

Why don't you do it yourself? That data is freely available, and
Open Office's spreadsheet application plots the data (or use
Microsoft Excel). You don't need anyone else to do it for you.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Yet more bad news; the past 12 months, according to NASA's Goddard
Space Flight's climatology reporting department, surpassed all
past recorded high temperatures for 12-month periods. Worse yet,
there is nothing we can do about reversing the problem: the CO2 we
put in the atmosphere will stay there for 200 or 300 years.

I see that MIT and Goddard have agreed that even if a way to
sequester that atmospheric CO2 were developed, it would be too
late to reverse the process--- a hell of a lot of anomalous heat
has been stored in the world's oceans (which has caused them to
rise by an average of 157.4 milimeters so far).

The good news is, the alarmist nutcases at FOX "News" tell us it
isn't really happening, so we all can stop worrying.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Desertphile wrote in
:

Yet more bad news; the past 12 months, according to NASA's Goddard
Space Flight's climatology reporting department, surpassed all
past recorded high temperatures for 12-month periods. Worse yet,
there is nothing we can do about reversing the problem: the CO2 we
put in the atmosphere will stay there for 200 or 300 years.

I see that MIT and Goddard have agreed that even if a way to
sequester that atmospheric CO2 were developed, it would be too
late to reverse the process--- a hell of a lot of anomalous heat
has been stored in the world's oceans (which has caused them to
rise by an average of 157.4 milimeters so far).

The good news is, the alarmist nutcases at FOX "News" tell us it
isn't really happening, so we all can stop worrying.



http://www.surfacestations.org/

With 82% of the stations now REALLY documented, it's fairly easy to see why
the parking lots the thermometers are mounted in keep getting warmer,
especially the ones with the hot cars and trucks parked right next to the
sensors.

Get a moped. Ride it out of town on a hot day when the thermometers in the
parking lots are recording record temps. Pick a route that drives by some
woods. Notice how it's 10C COOLER as you drive by the woods....even on the
road! This isn't a coincidence.

All the cool stations have been shut down, now. The data is ****.


--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics...

Larry