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 principle.

Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Or to be more specific,

cooked data in, cooked statistics out.

On 11 Mar, 23:21, Roger Coppock wrote:
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!

You argue like a 12 year old Roger.

On 11/03/08 23:41, in article
, "Roger
Coppock" wrote:


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


The monthly graph has just been updated for February

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

The anomaly for February is up from January from about
0.1 to 0.25 and well within the range of the fluctuations
of the last 10 years.

The point is that one can not visually see a net
warming or cooling over the last 10 years (the deniers
would like the latter) and of course, like you did,
one must rely on a statistical analysis to the warming
trend for the last 10 years.

Next, climate scientists never anticipated a smooth
warming curve. The big problem is the ocean with cooler
waters beneath and circulation which can brings
these waters to the surface. This could have a temporary
cooling effect on the world climate. But as long as the
combined forcings are positive, eventual warming will
catch up. When the temperature rises high enough
and the GHG levels become static, those forcings are
at zero and the temperature changes drop to zero
over the long run. However year by year fluctuations
remain pretty much the same. as we see in the cited
graph.

We have a scientifically interesting period ahead of us.
The Arctic sea ice is unusually still increasing when
they should be decreasing at this time of year.
The huge anomaly deficit which occurred last summer
appears, superficially, to have been cancelled out.
But this increase now is obviously new ice
(see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg)
But the increases are all occurring in areas which are devoid of
summer ice. We will see in September if any of the new
ice survives.

matt_sykes wrote:
On 11 Mar, 23:21, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 11, 2:01 pm, matt_sykes wrote:
[ . . . ]

I wish I got paid as much as Hansen for lying.
You get paid for the quality of your work, he must be a better liar than
you.


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

You argue like a 12 year old Roger.

James wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
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.

Until one can name all the factors involved in climate change, (natural as
well as human produced), the degree of each factor and it's interaction
with others as to climate, there is no verifiable conclusion of anthropic
means being a major causation of climate change.


But there's a real good chance that people can slow down the warming.
Perhaps we should act now and fix blame later...

On 12 Mar, 14:19, dave wrote:
James wrote:
But there's a real good chance that people can slow down the warming.
Perhaps we should act now and fix blame later...- Hide quoted text -


Since its dropped 0.7 `C in a year, the biggest recorded drop, do you
really want make it any cooler, any quicker?

Thank you Roger. This new data for February confirms my suspicion
that AGW is a total crock of ****.

It's all in the spin.

On 12/03/08 15:29, in article
,
"matt_sykes" wrote:

Since its dropped 0.7 `C in a year, the biggest recorded drop, do you
really want make it any cooler, any quicker?


More like 0.8°C if you take the high and low points
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
fràm the beginning of 2007. From the beginning of 1998
to the beginning of 2000 the same amount. From
the beginning of 2000 to 2002 it went up 0.8°C.

So don't cherry pick. Take a broad view.

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 12/03/08 15:29, in article

,
"matt_sykes" wrote:

Since its dropped 0.7 `C in a year, the biggest
recorded drop, do you really want make it any
cooler, any quicker?


More like 0.8°C if you take the high and low
points

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
fràm the beginning of 2007. From the beginning
of 1998 to the beginning of 2000 the same
amount. From the beginning of 2000 to 2002 it
went up 0.8°C.

So don't cherry pick. Take a broad view.

Don't cherry pick. Look at the Geologic record.
Take a longer view.