On Mar 12, 9:16*am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"Mr Right" wrote in message

...
On Mar 11, 10:55 pm, chemist wrote:





On Mar 10, 10:04 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

February was 26th warmest on the 129-year record.

Although February is the second month below the trend, it
remains 0.88 standard deviations above the mean. In the long
term therefore, global mean surface temperatures continue to
rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean February temperature over the last 129 years is 13.990 C.
The Variance is 0.09485.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.7497 Rxy^2 0.5621
TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 163.010435
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.387,
yet it was 14.26. -- second month below trend.
The sum of the residuals is 21.78824

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59174 * e^(.0004435 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.73184

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.800 2.60
1995 14.71 0.720 2.34
2002 14.70 0.710 2.31
2004 14.67 0.680 2.21
2007 14.63 0.640 2.08
1999 14.60 0.610 1.98
2006 14.58 0.590 1.92
2005 14.56 0.570 1.85
2003 14.51 0.520 1.69
2000 14.51 0.520 1.69
1996 14.47 0.480 1.56
1991 14.45 0.460 1.49
2001 14.41 0.420 1.36
1986 14.38 0.390 1.27
1987 14.37 0.380 1.23
1983 14.37 0.380 1.23
1981 14.37 0.380 1.23
1992 14.35 0.360 1.17
1988 14.35 0.360 1.17
1997 14.30 0.310 1.01
1990 14.29 0.300 0.98
1989 14.29 0.300 0.98
1993 14.28 0.290 0.94
1980 14.28 0.290 0.94
1973 14.28 0.290 0.94
2008 14.26 0.270 0.88 --
MEAN 13.990 0.000 0.00
1936 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1924 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1923 13.71 -0.280 -0.91
1910 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1906 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1885 13.68 -0.310 -1.01
1894 13.66 -0.330 -1.07
1913 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1909 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1922 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1883 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1899 13.63 -0.360 -1.17
1951 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1886 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1929 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.410 -1.33
1907 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1911 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1888 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1905 13.50 -0.490 -1.59
1887 13.49 -0.500 -1.62
1891 13.48 -0.510 -1.65
1917 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1895 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1893 13.46 -0.530 -1.72

The most recent 168 continuous months, or 14 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1538 months of data on this data set:
-- 658 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 168 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

Hansen's temperatures are a total lie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hansen's temperatures are a total lie

Roger has revealed in his post above, the formula that Hansen uses to
calculate the temperature for any given year.

TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))

* Proof?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roger has supplied the proof.

If Roger's correlation of CO2 levels versus temperature, with an R^2
of 0.78, proves that CO2 levels cause the temperature. Then Roger's
correlation of year versus temperature, with an R^2 of 0.5621, proves
that the year determines the temperature. You just plug the year into
the formula, and get the temperature required to fit the desired
trend, with a confidence of "approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!"

On Mar 11, 6:45*pm, Lloyd wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:31 am, matt_sykes wrote:





On Mar 10, 11:04 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

February was 26th warmest on the 129-year record.

Although February is the second month below the trend, it
remains 0.88 standard deviations above the mean. *In the long
term therefore, global mean surface temperatures continue to
rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean February temperature over the last 129 years is 13.990 C.
The Variance is 0.09485.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.7497 * Rxy^2 0.5621
TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 163.010435
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.387,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.26. -- second month below trend.
The sum of the residuals is 21.78824

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59174 * e^(.0004435 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.73184

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.800 * * 2.60
1995 * 14.71 * * 0.720 * * 2.34
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.710 * * 2.31
2004 * 14.67 * * 0.680 * * 2.21
2007 * 14.63 * * 0.640 * * 2.08
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.610 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.58 * * 0.590 * * 1.92
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.570 * * 1.85
2003 * 14.51 * * 0.520 * * 1.69
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.520 * * 1.69
1996 * 14.47 * * 0.480 * * 1.56
1991 * 14.45 * * 0.460 * * 1.49
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.420 * * 1.36
1986 * 14.38 * * 0.390 * * 1.27
1987 * 14.37 * * 0.380 * * 1.23
1983 * 14.37 * * 0.380 * * 1.23
1981 * 14.37 * * 0.380 * * 1.23
1992 * 14.35 * * 0.360 * * 1.17
1988 * 14.35 * * 0.360 * * 1.17
1997 * 14.30 * * 0.310 * * 1.01
1990 * 14.29 * * 0.300 * * 0.98
1989 * 14.29 * * 0.300 * * 0.98
1993 * 14.28 * * 0.290 * * 0.94
1980 * 14.28 * * 0.290 * * 0.94
1973 * 14.28 * * 0.290 * * 0.94
2008 * 14.26 * * 0.270 * * 0.88 --
MEAN * 13.990 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1936 * 13.74 * *-0.250 * *-0.81
1924 * 13.74 * *-0.250 * *-0.81
1923 * 13.71 * *-0.280 * *-0.91
1910 * 13.70 * *-0.290 * *-0.94
1906 * 13.70 * *-0.290 * *-0.94
1885 * 13.68 * *-0.310 * *-1.01
1894 * 13.66 * *-0.330 * *-1.07
1913 * 13.65 * *-0.340 * *-1.10
1909 * 13.65 * *-0.340 * *-1.10
1922 * 13.64 * *-0.350 * *-1.14
1883 * 13.64 * *-0.350 * *-1.14
1899 * 13.63 * *-0.360 * *-1.17
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.380 * *-1.23
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.380 * *-1.23
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.400 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.400 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.410 * *-1.33
1907 * 13.55 * *-0.440 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.440 * *-1.43
1911 * 13.54 * *-0.450 * *-1.46
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.450 * *-1.46
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.490 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.49 * *-0.500 * *-1.62
1891 * 13.48 * *-0.510 * *-1.65
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.520 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.47 * *-0.520 * *-1.69
1893 * 13.46 * *-0.530 * *-1.72

The most recent 168 continuous months, or 14 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1538 months of data on this data set:
* -- 658 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 168 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. *A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

And if you take out the adjustments in the NASA data that Hansen
applies, such as 3 degrees warmer in the early 20 century, you have no
warming trend at all.

Matt, you are lying. *Look at the damn graph!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Look at the global raw station data. No trend.

On Mar 11, 9:14*pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"matt_sykes" wrote in message

...
On Mar 10, 11:04 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:





February was 26th warmest on the 129-year record.

Although February is the second month below the trend, it
remains 0.88 standard deviations above the mean. In the long
term therefore, global mean surface temperatures continue to
rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean February temperature over the last 129 years is 13.990 C.
The Variance is 0.09485.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.7497 Rxy^2 0.5621
TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 163.010435
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.387,
yet it was 14.26. -- second month below trend.
The sum of the residuals is 21.78824

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59174 * e^(.0004435 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.73184

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.800 2.60
1995 14.71 0.720 2.34
2002 14.70 0.710 2.31
2004 14.67 0.680 2.21
2007 14.63 0.640 2.08
1999 14.60 0.610 1.98
2006 14.58 0.590 1.92
2005 14.56 0.570 1.85
2003 14.51 0.520 1.69
2000 14.51 0.520 1.69
1996 14.47 0.480 1.56
1991 14.45 0.460 1.49
2001 14.41 0.420 1.36
1986 14.38 0.390 1.27
1987 14.37 0.380 1.23
1983 14.37 0.380 1.23
1981 14.37 0.380 1.23
1992 14.35 0.360 1.17
1988 14.35 0.360 1.17
1997 14.30 0.310 1.01
1990 14.29 0.300 0.98
1989 14.29 0.300 0.98
1993 14.28 0.290 0.94
1980 14.28 0.290 0.94
1973 14.28 0.290 0.94
2008 14.26 0.270 0.88 --
MEAN 13.990 0.000 0.00
1936 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1924 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1923 13.71 -0.280 -0.91
1910 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1906 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1885 13.68 -0.310 -1.01
1894 13.66 -0.330 -1.07
1913 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1909 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1922 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1883 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1899 13.63 -0.360 -1.17
1951 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1886 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1929 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.410 -1.33
1907 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1911 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1888 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1905 13.50 -0.490 -1.59
1887 13.49 -0.500 -1.62
1891 13.48 -0.510 -1.65
1917 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1895 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1893 13.46 -0.530 -1.72

The most recent 168 continuous months, or 14 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1538 months of data on this data set:
-- 658 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 168 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

And if you take out the adjustments in the NASA data that Hansen
applies, such as 3 degrees warmer in the early 20 century, you have no
warming trend at all.

* Poor Matt Sykes - he lies, and lies, and lies, and lies, and lies, and
lies, and lies. *lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wish I got paid as much as Hansen for lying.

"Mr Right" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 9:16 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"Mr Right" wrote in message

...
On Mar 11, 10:55 pm, chemist wrote:





On Mar 10, 10:04 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

February was 26th warmest on the 129-year record.

Although February is the second month below the trend, it
remains 0.88 standard deviations above the mean. In the long
term therefore, global mean surface temperatures continue to
rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean February temperature over the last 129 years is 13.990 C.
The Variance is 0.09485.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.7497 Rxy^2 0.5621
TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 163.010435
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.387,
yet it was 14.26. -- second month below trend.
The sum of the residuals is 21.78824

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59174 * e^(.0004435 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.73184

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.800 2.60
1995 14.71 0.720 2.34
2002 14.70 0.710 2.31
2004 14.67 0.680 2.21
2007 14.63 0.640 2.08
1999 14.60 0.610 1.98
2006 14.58 0.590 1.92
2005 14.56 0.570 1.85
2003 14.51 0.520 1.69
2000 14.51 0.520 1.69
1996 14.47 0.480 1.56
1991 14.45 0.460 1.49
2001 14.41 0.420 1.36
1986 14.38 0.390 1.27
1987 14.37 0.380 1.23
1983 14.37 0.380 1.23
1981 14.37 0.380 1.23
1992 14.35 0.360 1.17
1988 14.35 0.360 1.17
1997 14.30 0.310 1.01
1990 14.29 0.300 0.98
1989 14.29 0.300 0.98
1993 14.28 0.290 0.94
1980 14.28 0.290 0.94
1973 14.28 0.290 0.94
2008 14.26 0.270 0.88 --
MEAN 13.990 0.000 0.00
1936 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1924 13.74 -0.250 -0.81
1923 13.71 -0.280 -0.91
1910 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1906 13.70 -0.290 -0.94
1885 13.68 -0.310 -1.01
1894 13.66 -0.330 -1.07
1913 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1909 13.65 -0.340 -1.10
1922 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1883 13.64 -0.350 -1.14
1899 13.63 -0.360 -1.17
1951 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1886 13.61 -0.380 -1.23
1929 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.400 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.410 -1.33
1907 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.440 -1.43
1911 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1888 13.54 -0.450 -1.46
1905 13.50 -0.490 -1.59
1887 13.49 -0.500 -1.62
1891 13.48 -0.510 -1.65
1917 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1895 13.47 -0.520 -1.69
1893 13.46 -0.530 -1.72

The most recent 168 continuous months, or 14 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1538 months of data on this data set:
-- 658 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 168 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

Hansen's temperatures are a total lie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hansen's temperatures are a total lie

Roger has revealed in his post above, the formula that Hansen uses to
calculate the temperature for any given year.

TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))

Proof?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roger has supplied the proof.

If Roger's correlation of CO2 levels versus temperature, with an R^2
of 0.78, proves that CO2 levels cause the temperature. Then Roger's
correlation of year versus temperature, with an R^2 of 0.5621, proves
that the year determines the temperature. You just plug the year into
the formula, and get the temperature required to fit the desired
trend, with a confidence of "approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!"


Doesn't get much dumber than this!

Would you like to try again, only this time using logic above third grade
level?

On Mar 11, 2:01*pm, matt_sykes wrote:
[ . . . ]
I wish I got paid as much as Hansen for lying.

So then, you admit that you're paid for lying, Matt!

On Mar 11, 3:24*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 11, 10:55*pm, chemist wrote

Hansen's temperatures are a total lie

Roger has revealed in his post above, the formula that Hansen uses to
calculate the temperature for any given year.

TEMP = 13.586652 + (0.006201 * (YEAR-1879))

Given that the temperature comes from a formula, the confidence of


NOPE, that formula is the result of regression
of the data, not a formula from Dr. Hansen



nonzero correlation should be exactly 100%. Roger's confidence is less
than this because he keeps making mistakes.

Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

Note that Roger's confidence is dropping because his last posting
showed 24 nines.

HA! HA! Another fossil fool who flunks basic statistics.

On Mar 11, 1:41*pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]

If Roger's correlation of CO2 levels versus temperature, with an R^2
of 0.78, proves that CO2 levels cause the temperature. Then Roger's
correlation of year versus temperature, with an R^2 of 0.5621, proves
that the year determines the temperature. You just plug the year into
the formula, and get the temperature required to fit the desired
trend, with a confidence of "approximately
0.99999999999999999999999 (23 nines), which is darn close to 100%!"

Are you playing dumb for the sake of sarcasm,
or are you really a moron?

If you wonder why no one respects your
views enought to debate you, here is
one reason why, Dunderbar.

On Mar 11, 1:03*pm, Tunderbar wrote:
[ . . . ]
If that was a valid point then the fact that the last 7 or 8 years
show no upward trend must be pretty strong evidence against agw.

A LIE! Last 8 years show an upward trend on the 0.95 level.


The Mean Yearly temperature over the last 8 years is 14.518 C.
The Variance is 0.00674.
The Standard Deviation is 0.0821.

Rxy 0.69754 Rxy^2 0.486562
TEMP = 14.405 + (0.025 * (YEAR-1999))
Degrees of Freedom = 6 F = 5.685921
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.945568280

The sum of the residuals is 0.43

YEAR TEMP
2000 14.33
2001 14.48
2002 14.56
2003 14.55
2004 14.49
2005 14.62
2006 14.54

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
If you wonder why no one respects your
views enought to debate you, here is
one reason why, Dunderbar.

On Mar 11, 1:03 pm, Tunderbar wrote:
[ . . . ]
If that was a valid point then the fact that the last 7 or 8 years
show no upward trend must be pretty strong evidence against agw.

A LIE! Last 8 years show an upward trend on the 0.95 level.


The Mean Yearly temperature over the last 8 years is 14.518 C.
The Variance is 0.00674.
The Standard Deviation is 0.0821.

Rxy 0.69754 Rxy^2 0.486562
TEMP = 14.405 + (0.025 * (YEAR-1999))
Degrees of Freedom = 6 F = 5.685921
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.945568280

The sum of the residuals is 0.43

YEAR TEMP
2000 14.33
2001 14.48
2002 14.56
2003 14.55
2004 14.49
2005 14.62
2006 14.54

Those are your numbers aren't they?

On Mar 12, 5:04*pm, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
If you wonder why no one respects your
views enought to debate you, here is
one reason why, Dunderbar.

On Mar 11, 1:03 pm, Tunderbar wrote:
[ . . . ]

If that was a valid point then the fact that the last 7 or 8 years
show no upward trend must be pretty strong evidence against agw.

A LIE! *Last 8 years show an upward trend on the 0.95 level.

The Mean Yearly temperature over the last 8 years is 14.518 C.
The Variance is 0.00674.
The Standard Deviation is 0.0821.

Rxy 0.69754 * Rxy^2 0.486562
TEMP = 14.405 + (0.025 * (YEAR-1999))
Degrees of Freedom = 6 * * * * F = 5.685921
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.945568280

The sum of the residuals is 0.43

YEAR *TEMP
2000 *14.33
2001 *14.48
2002 *14.56
2003 *14.55
2004 *14.49
2005 *14.62
2006 *14.54

Those are your numbers aren't they?

Roger's statistics illustrate an important scientific point.

Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Or to be more specific,

cooked data in, cooked statistics out.