November was 5th warmest on NASA's 128-year global land record.
 

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:25:40 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
Poor Rich you got so many things wrong here, you're either very stupid or
playing at it. I can't waste time with any of your errors, they're all
too
dumb.


"Bill Ward" wrote
Yeah, Rich, shame on you for using big words like "chaos". How do you
expect Roger to understand that, when he clearly doesn't even understand
the use of statistics?

Some of us know that over the short term curves can be approximated to any
desired accuracy with a series of straight lines. This observation is the
mathematical basis of all modern physics.

Somehow the observation has escaped Bill Ward.

November was 5th warmest on NASA's 128-year global land record.
 

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:25 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
(Peder B. Pels) wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
You goof, there isn't any physical quantity that can
be expressed to 10 decimal places, let alone 18.
Since when has a confidence factor been a physical quantity?
An "estimated" confidence factor, computed from data
cherry picked.

I did not cherry pick.

No, they are magic numbers of unknown lineage and parentage.

And Roger has 36 digits of confidence in a linear analysis
of weather, that's the scary part.

But let's see where it takes us.

Rxy 0.85554 Rxy2 0.73195
TEMP = 13.614826 + (0.005547 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 125 F = 341.335554
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999 (36 nines), which is darn close
to 100%!

TEMP = 13.614826 + (0.005547 * (YEAR-1879))

Year Temperature
========== ===========
-1,000,000 -5543.81
-500,000 -2770.31
-100,000 -551.51
-10,000 -52.28
-5,000 -24.54
-3,000 -13.45
-2,000 -7.9
-1,000 -2.35
-500 0.42
0 3.19
500 5.97
1,000 8.74
2,000 14.29
3,000 19.83
5,000 30.93
10,000 58.66
100,000 557.89
500,000 2776.69
1,000,000 5550.19

Yes folks, Roger's analytic techniques show that 1 million
years ago the temperature was about -5500 degrees. And we're
in big big trouble in the distant future. It seems obvious
what killed the dinosaurs, no?

Damn that AGW.

Roger also states that "We know that a 'running average'
destroys the value of correlation data." Roger uses a 30
year rolling average himself and states a "Confidence of
nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999 (36 nines)".
So from whence does his confidence come?

It's pretty well agreed that weather is chaotic, and a
simple linear model seems totally inappropriate.

Cheers,

Rich

November was 5th warmest on NASA's 128-year global land record.
 

Poor Rich you got so many things wrong here,
you're either very stupid or playing at it.
I can't waste time with any of your errors,
they're all too dumb.


On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Rich wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:25 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
(Peder B. Pels) wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
You goof, there isn't any physical quantity that can
be expressed to 10 decimal places, let alone 18.
Since when has a confidence factor been a physical quantity?
An "estimated" confidence factor, computed from data
cherry picked.

I did not cherry pick.

No, they are magic numbers of unknown lineage and parentage.

And Roger has 36 digits of confidence in a linear analysis
of weather, that's the scary part.

But let's see where it takes us.

Rxy 0.85554 Rxy2 0.73195
TEMP = 13.614826 + (0.005547 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 125 F = 341.335554
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999 (36 nines), which is darn close
to 100%!

TEMP = 13.614826 + (0.005547 * (YEAR-1879))

Year Temperature
========== ===========
-1,000,000 -5543.81
-500,000 -2770.31
-100,000 -551.51
-10,000 -52.28
-5,000 -24.54
-3,000 -13.45
-2,000 -7.9
-1,000 -2.35
-500 0.42
0 3.19
500 5.97
1,000 8.74
2,000 14.29
3,000 19.83
5,000 30.93
10,000 58.66
100,000 557.89
500,000 2776.69
1,000,000 5550.19

Yes folks, Roger's analytic techniques show that 1 million
years ago the temperature was about -5500 degrees. And we're
in big big trouble in the distant future. It seems obvious
what killed the dinosaurs, no?

Damn that AGW.

Roger also states that "We know that a 'running average'
destroys the value of correlation data." Roger uses a 30
year rolling average himself and states a "Confidence of
nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999 (36 nines)".
So from whence does his confidence come?




It's pretty well agreed that weather is chaotic, and a
simple linear model seems totally inappropriate.

Cheers,

Rich