Roger Coppock wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially
over the period is it?

Yes, the Earth's mean surface temperature shows
signs of rising exponentially. Compare the two
sums of residuals below. Both linear and
exponential are 2 degree of freedom curve fits.
Each has two terms that must be determined
by the curve fit, a constant term and one other
term. The exponential fit has slightly less total
residuals. This means that the exponential curve
fits the temperature data slightly better than a
straight line.


TEMP = 13.661798 + (0.004962 * (YEAR-1879))
[ . . . ]
The sum of the residuals is 11.920386


Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.665012 * e^(.0003535 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 11.880982


The above data are from last years, 2005, yearly report
on NASA GISS's "GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature
Index" data file. The data file is found at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

I will post my new report this year, as soon as NASA
posts the data.
BUT ROGER THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY FLAT FOR NEARLY 10
YEARS

AGW is a scam wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially
over the period is it?

Yes, the Earth's mean surface temperature shows
signs of rising exponentially. Compare the two
sums of residuals below. Both linear and
exponential are 2 degree of freedom curve fits.
Each has two terms that must be determined
by the curve fit, a constant term and one other
term. The exponential fit has slightly less total
residuals. This means that the exponential curve
fits the temperature data slightly better than a
straight line.


TEMP = 13.661798 + (0.004962 * (YEAR-1879))
[ . . . ]
The sum of the residuals is 11.920386

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.665012 * e^(.0003535 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 11.880982


The above data are from last years, 2005, yearly report
on NASA GISS's "GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature
Index" data file. The data file is found at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

I will post my new report this year, as soon as NASA
posts the data.
BUT ROGER THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY FLAT FOR NEARLY 10
YEARS

HA! HA! THAT LIE WON'T FLY.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2005.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg

The 2006 numbers aren't in yet, but I'm 98% sure you're wong.

For the years 1995 to 2005:
The global mean surface temperature warmed at 2.3K per century.
The Mean Yearly temperature over the last 11 years is 14.456 C.
The Variance is 0.01179.
The Standard Deviation is 0.1086.

Rxy 0.685819 Rxy^2 0.470348
TEMP = 14.315091 + (0.023545 * (YEAR-1994))
Degrees of Freedom = 9 F = 7.992282
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.980182799

The year 2005
is linearly projected to be 14.574,
yet it was 14.63.
The sum of the residuals is 0.703818

I dont want to pin prick, (yes I do! I love a good argue don't WE? )
temperature AT the surface or temperature ON the surface of the planet?
Well I was thinking 70 % roughly is Water is the surface. So I assume
the temperature being measured is atmospheric? So is that the wet or
dry temperature? No significance?

any answers yet?

Numbers please,

rude lad - if in doubt check yourself

use google

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.htm

Buzz

buzz wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.htm

From the article:
"The changes in the ice look like those expected for a warming world,"
said glaciologist Richard Alley at Pennsylvania State University. "The
new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new
result supports global warming."

AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?
WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC RUBBISH YOU ALARMISTS WRITE . That 79 calories would
be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise . Read up on latent
heat and stop trolling with stupid logic.

Oralator, you changed your login name, how clever, trying to get away
from the Seppo Renfors stench trail that you left.

"0 degrees change in temperature from solid to liquid phase change" is
what I said. Then you said the same thing using different words: "That
79 calories would be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise". How
very clever to say the same thing but accuse me of being wrong.

And after the ice is gone? What hapens to the 79 perpetually renewed
calories that global warming delived to melt the ice? What happen AFTER
there is no more "latent heat" buffer from temperature change? What
temperature does a gram of liquid water attain after absorbing the 79
calories that melted the ice, hmmmm? Would 174 degrees Farenheit, how
about 354 degrees Kelvin, or just plain +79 degrees Celsius, be about
the correct answer?

It will take several thousand years to melt the ice and several
thousand more years to raise the temperature .

It doesn't take "years" to melt ice -- it takes "calories". Calories
are the heat unit that is at the core of the metric system. One calorie
added to one gram of water raises the temperature one degree. 79
calories to melt one gram of ice. If the calories are there the ice
will melt. Neither ice nor calories have brains or eyes -- they can't
think about calendars and years. All they "know" is physical principles
-- if the calories are sufficient, the ice will melt, as it did in an
area the size of the state of Indiana in 2006.

That is of course if the
ice is melting. At the moment the Antarctic ice is expanding faster
than Arctic ice is shrinking.

The Antarctic is in the southern hemisphere. Gases and temperatures
both have difficulty crossing the Hadley Cells of the Equator. The vast
bulk of civilization is located in the Northern Hemisphere -- Melborne
is not known to be civilized from our perspective if they don't teach
enough physics to understand Earth Sciences.

Thermodynamics is not just a big word. It actually has meaning.

Calories do not disappear by melting ice. Either they remain in the
water or are radiated out to space. The greenhouse gases close off some
outwards radiation.

Like you made the error in another message, you make it again here.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but inly changes form. The
melting ice absorbed 79 calories of heat in the summer, over 38,000
square miles ten feet thick, for 27,000,000 tons of TNT explosion
energy equivalent, or one 3,000 gallon gasoline tanker burned every
minute, day and night, for 170 days.

That 79 calories per gram of energy is now being released as the ice
freezes again, but the temperature does not increase one degree in the
process -- the energy is not "heat" now, but it is changed to kinetic
energy, expansion energy, which is killing 340,000 cattle in the USA
west and breaking utilities from Kansas to Seattle. It's the same
energy, the exact very same energy, that was Hurricane Ioke formed
south of Hawaii in August. Physics says the energy was NOT DESTROYED,
and it did not radiate off planet -- it is here doing damages 5 months
later. It has killed people, and will continue to kill people until it
is dissipated.

27,000,000 tons of TNT is more energy than somebody with your pathetic
education ought to be playing with, so go suck Exxon's Dick someplace
else and get out of here.

AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?
WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC RUBBISH YOU ALARMISTS WRITE . That 79 calories would
be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise . Read up on latent
heat and stop trolling with stupid logic.

Oralator, you changed your login name, how clever, trying to get away
from the Seppo Renfors stench trail that you left.

"0 degrees change in temperature from solid to liquid phase change" is
what I said. Then you said the same thing using different words: "That
79 calories would be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise". How
very clever to say the same thing but accuse me of being wrong.

And after the ice is gone? What hapens to the 79 perpetually renewed
calories that global warming delived to melt the ice? What happen AFTER
there is no more "latent heat" buffer from temperature change? What
temperature does a gram of liquid water attain after absorbing the 79
calories that melted the ice, hmmmm? Would 174 degrees Farenheit, how
about 354 degrees Kelvin, or just plain +79 degrees Celsius, be about
the correct answer?

It will take several thousand years to melt the ice and several
thousand more years to raise the temperature .

It doesn't take "years" to melt ice -- it takes "calories". Calories
are the heat unit that is at the core of the metric system. One calorie
added to one gram of water raises the temperature one degree. 79
calories to melt one gram of ice. If the calories are there the ice
will melt. Neither ice nor calories have brains or eyes -- they can't
think about calendars and years. All they "know" is physical principles
-- if the calories are sufficient, the ice will melt, as it did in an
area the size of the state of Indiana in 2006.

That is of course if the
ice is melting. At the moment the Antarctic ice is expanding faster
than Arctic ice is shrinking.

The Antarctic is in the southern hemisphere. Gases and temperatures
both have difficulty crossing the Hadley Cells of the Equator. The vast
bulk of civilization is located in the Northern Hemisphere -- Melborne
is not known to be civilized from our perspective if they don't teach
enough physics to understand Earth Sciences.

Thermodynamics is not just a big word. It actually has meaning.

Calories do not disappear by melting ice. Either they remain in the
water or are radiated out to space. The greenhouse gases close off some
outwards radiation.

Like you made the error in another message, you make it again here.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form. The
melting ice absorbed 79 calories of heat in the summer, over 38,000
square miles ten feet thick, for 27,000,000 tons of TNT explosion
energy equivalent, or one 3,000 gallon gasoline tanker burned every
minute, day and night, for 170 days.

That 79 calories per gram of energy is now being released as the ice
freezes again, but the temperature does not increase one degree in the
process -- the energy is not "heat" now, but it is changed to kinetic
energy, expansion energy, which is killing 340,000 cattle in the USA
west and breaking utilities from Kansas to Seattle. It's the same
energy, the exact very same energy, that was Hurricane Ioke formed
south of Hawaii in August. Physics says the energy was NOT DESTROYED,
and it did not radiate off planet -- it is here doing damages 5 months
later. It has killed people, and will continue to kill people until it
is dissipated.

27,000,000 tons of TNT is more energy than somebody with your pathetic
education ought to be playing with, so go suck Exxon's Dick someplace
else and get out of here.