Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation,"
but they don't do the math. Never, ever, trust a
fossil fool when they use the word "correlation."
Do the math for yourself. For example, look at
this post from "BONZO," the troll, below.

On Apr 29, 11:38*pm, "0BZN0" wrote
in a post titled, "Sunspot Facts From A Geologist":
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonE...Transcript.pdf

KLC: What about the claim by Hansen and others that TSI [Total Solar
Irradiance] has been unchanged for 80 years, thus it cannot explain
recent global warming?

DJE: Not true. If you look at the data coming out, you see a strong
correlation between global temperature and irradiance. If you plot
[ . . . ]

OK, NOW LET'S ACTUALLY DO THE MATH!

GISS Temperature Vs Solar Irradiance
lm(formula = Temp ~ Solrad, data = aframe)

Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.470475901 -0.161016633 -0.000348838 0.134107414 0.306698240

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) 85.7822901 126.9714693 0.67560 0.50447
Solrad -0.0523404 0.0929558 -0.56307 0.57757

Residual standard error: 0.196881 on 30 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.0104577, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0225271
F-statistic: 0.317045 on 1 and 30 DF, p-value: 0.577573

THERE IS HARDLY ANY CORRELATION HERE AT ALL!

Year Temp Solrad
1976 13.84 1365.5187
1977 14.13 1365.64911
1978 14.02 1366.02502
1979 14.09 1366.41783
1980 14.18 1366.50338
1981 14.27 1366.49349
1982 14.05 1366.14151
1983 14.26 1366.15496
1984 14.09 1365.7221
1985 14.06 1365.56542
1986 14.13 1365.57517
1987 14.27 1365.65815
1988 14.31 1365.9702
1989 14.19 1366.47347
1990 14.38 1366.41775
1991 14.35 1366.34228
1992 14.12 1366.1605
1993 14.14 1365.85021
1994 14.24 1365.68438
1995 14.38 1365.59545
1996 14.30 1365.50405
1997 14.40 1365.65482
1998 14.57 1365.97464
1999 14.33 1366.18393
2000 14.33 1366.39363
2001 14.48 1366.31108
2002 14.56 1366.33738
2003 14.55 1365.87438
2004 14.49 1365.65556
2005 14.62 1365.46471
2006 14.54 1365.3699
2007 14.57 1365.23807

The global mean surface "Temp"erature 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

The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
PMODWRC. They cover the period from 1/12/1976 to 03/05/2008.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradi...41_61_0803.dat

A preprocessing program removed data marked by PMODWRC as
invalid and computed yearly means.

On Apr 30, 10:59*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation,"
but they don't do the math. *Never, ever, trust a
fossil fool when they use the word "correlation."
Do the math for yourself. *For example, look at
this post from "BONZO," the troll, below.

On Apr 29, 11:38*pm, "0BZN0" wrote
in a post titled, "Sunspot Facts From A Geologist":



Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.

CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Washington

March 30, 2008

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonE...Transcript.pdf

KLC: What about the claim by Hansen and others that TSI [Total Solar
Irradiance] has been unchanged for 80 years, thus it cannot explain
recent global warming?

DJE: Not true. If you look at the data coming out, you see a strong
correlation between global temperature and irradiance. If you plot

[ . . . ]

OK, NOW LET'S ACTUALLY DO THE MATH!

GISS Temperature Vs Solar Irradiance
lm(formula = Temp ~ Solrad, data = aframe)

Residuals:
* * * * *Min * * * * * 1Q * * * Median * * * * * 3Q * * * * *Max
-0.470475901 -0.161016633 -0.000348838 *0.134107414 *0.306698240

Coefficients:
* * * * * * * *Estimate *Std. Error *t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) *85.7822901 126.9714693 *0.67560 *0.50447
Solrad * * * -0.0523404 * 0.0929558 -0.56307 *0.57757

Residual standard error: 0.196881 on 30 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.0104577, *Adjusted R-squared: -0.0225271
F-statistic: 0.317045 on 1 and 30 DF, *p-value: 0.577573

THERE IS HARDLY ANY CORRELATION HERE AT ALL!

Year Temp *Solrad
1976 13.84 1365.5187
1977 14.13 1365.64911
1978 14.02 1366.02502
1979 14.09 1366.41783
1980 14.18 1366.50338
1981 14.27 1366.49349
1982 14.05 1366.14151
1983 14.26 1366.15496
1984 14.09 1365.7221
1985 14.06 1365.56542
1986 14.13 1365.57517
1987 14.27 1365.65815
1988 14.31 1365.9702
1989 14.19 1366.47347
1990 14.38 1366.41775
1991 14.35 1366.34228
1992 14.12 1366.1605
1993 14.14 1365.85021
1994 14.24 1365.68438
1995 14.38 1365.59545
1996 14.30 1365.50405
1997 14.40 1365.65482
1998 14.57 1365.97464
1999 14.33 1366.18393
2000 14.33 1366.39363
2001 14.48 1366.31108
2002 14.56 1366.33738
2003 14.55 1365.87438
2004 14.49 1365.65556
2005 14.62 1365.46471
2006 14.54 1365.3699
2007 14.57 1365.23807

The global mean surface "Temp"erature 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

The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
PMODWRC. *They cover the period from 1/12/1976 to 03/05/2008.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradi...Plots/ext_comp...

A preprocessing program removed data marked by PMODWRC as
invalid and computed yearly means.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation",

Roger Coppock likes the word "correlation",

Is Roger Coppock a Pseudo-scientist?

On 30/04/08 14:29, in article
, "Mr Right"
wrote:

Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation",

Real scientists do too.

If you google my name, Evleth correlation diagrams you
get 324 hits. Those diagrams are "absolute", that is
to say if you actually do detailed computations you
find the same thing as predicted using diagrams.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation,"
but they don't do the math.


Wouldn't that be Psudo-math

On 30/04/08 18:06, in article ,
"Poetic Justice" wrote:

Wouldn't that be Psudo-math


Pseudo!

I don't know if the concept exists. I have never heard of pseudo-math.

How about pseudo-arithmetic. Have you ever tried to do long division
using Roman numerals?

Earl Evleth wrote:
On 30/04/08 18:06, in article ,
"Poetic Justice" wrote:

Wouldn't that be Pseudo-math


Pseudo!

I don't know if the concept exists. I have never heard of pseudo-math.

How about pseudo-arithmetic. Have you ever tried to do long division
using Roman numerals?


Fixed it(Pseudo), how about base 5 long division?

"Mr Right" wrote
Pseudo-scientists like the word "correlation",
Roger Coppock likes the word "correlation",
Is Roger Coppock a Pseudo-scientist?

KKKonservative logic at it's best.

MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN