 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
February 27, 2008
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/
27/antarctica-ain%e2%80%99t-cooperating/
We have kidded from time to time about renaming World Climate Report to
World Hurricane Report given all the evidence we encounter in the
professional literature discrediting the claim of more frequent and
intense hurricanes. If we decided to never again report on hurricanes,
our next most popular topic would be Antarctica.
Literally thousands of websites on global warming claim that the icecaps
are melting at an unprecedented rate due to emissions of greenhouse
gases (particularly from the United States), and in case you cannot
picture what that looks like, the sites feature an endless number of
pictures of blocks of ice floating away from Antarctica (the really
effective pictures have a few penguins floating away as well). National
Geographic magazine featured a cover story entitled "The Big Thaw," and
based on what you would see in that issue, you would think there is
absolutely no debate about rapid and undesirable changes occurring in
Antarctica all due to the dreaded global warming phenomenon. As we have
shown over and over, nothing could be further from the truth!
When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most clearly
states in their 2007 summary report "Antarctic sea ice extent continues
to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no
statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of
warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the
region." Furthermore, IPCC just as clearly states "Current global model
studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for
widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to
increased snowfall." It would take anyone with internet access no more
than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but
once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly
happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse advocates.
Another major article on temperature trends in the Antarctic has
appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research by a
team of scientists from Ohio State University, the University of
Illinois, and the Goddard Space Flight Center; the research was funded
by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Glaciology
Program. Monaghan et al. begin their lengthy (21 pages - quite long for
geophysics) article noting that a previous research team studying
Antarctica examined "station temperature records for the past 50 years
and report statistically insignificant temperature fluctuations over
continental Antarctica excluding the Antarctic Peninsula, with the
exception of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which cooled by -0.17 K
decade-1 for 1958-2000." That is correct - despite all you have heard
elsewhere on the subject, the South Pole has been cooling over the past
half century. The previous research team also reported that any warming
in Antarctica has slowed and the cooling has accelerated in the more
recent three decades.
According to Monaghan et al., yet another team previously examined
Antarctic temperatures and "note that prior to 1965 the continent-wide
annual trends (through 2002) are slightly positive, but after 1965 they
are mainly negative (despite warming over the Antarctic Peninsula)." One
of the authors of the Monaghan et al. group had previously examined
trends in temperature "inferred from skin temperatures from Advanced
Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments on polar orbiting
satellites" and found "a statistically insignificant cooling trend over
continental Antarctica from 1982 to 1998." Monaghan et al. further note
"recent literature suggests there has been little overall change in
Antarctic near-surface temperature during the past 5 decades" and "the
absence of widespread Antarctic temperature increases is consistent with
studies showing little overall change in other Antarctic climate
indicators during the past 50 years such as sea ice area and snowfall."
OK, you get the message - Antarctica is definitely not cooperating with
this greenhouse scare!
Monaghan fairly note that there is still uncertainty "because of the
sparse network of continuous, long-term near-surface temperature records
(about 15 stations on a continent 1 1/2 times as large as the United
States), there is still considerable uncertainty as to (1) the spatial
and temporal variability of Antarctic near-surface temperature trends
and (2) whether the existing network of stations provides a temperature
record that is representative of the entire continent." Accordingly,
they introduce a new method for using existing temperature records,
atmospheric circulation variables, topography, and a sophisticated
interpolation method to build a better temperature representation for
the continent.
Now for the bottom line relevant to us. As seen in the figure below
(Figure 1), the various Antarctic-wide temperature patterns are very
highly correlated (the new datasets are the "RECON" designation). The
authors have various versions of their "RECON" time series depending on
several decisions made by the team, but the bottom line is obvious, the
is little evidence for warming in Antarctica! They state "All records
correlate significantly with all other records during all seasons from
1982 to 2001. Near-surface temperature trends are statistically
insignificant (p >0.05) on annual timescales within every data set
analyzed, for both the longer (1960-2002) and shorter (1982-2001)
periods."
Figure 1. Annual Antarctic near-surface temperature (K) anomalies (with
respect to the 1980-1999 mean) for various data sets for (a) 1950-2005
and (b) 1980-2005. The new temperature datasets developed in the 2008
article are labeled "RECON" (from Monaghan et al., 2008).
Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming their
results, the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica
is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all
translate into claims that "Antarctica is warming and melting." The
truth from Antarctica is hard for the greenhouse crusade to accept
(although certainly they try hard to fit it in), and in the long run,
the truth from Antarctica might melt away the flimsy, well-publicized
claims about global climate change-especially the concerns of a rapid
sea level rise.
Reference:
Monaghan, A. J., D. H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J. C. Comiso (2008),
Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature,
Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D04105, doi:10.1029/2007JD009094.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
"00BNZ" <0...@d...com> wrote in message
news:47ec761b@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> February 27, 2008
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
ROFLMAO
On Mar 27, 11:37 pm, "00BNZ" <0...@d...com> wrote:
> February 27, 2008http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008
/02/27/antarctica-ain...
>
> We have kidded from time to time about renaming World Climate Report to
> World Hurricane Report given all the evidence we encounter in the
> professional literature discrediting the claim of more frequent and
> intense hurricanes. If we decided to never again report on hurricanes,
> our next most popular topic would be Antarctica.
>
> Literally thousands of websites on global warming claim that the icecaps
> are melting at an unprecedented rate due to emissions of greenhouse
> gases (particularly from the United States), and in case you cannot
> picture what that looks like, the sites feature an endless number of
> pictures of blocks of ice floating away from Antarctica (the really
> effective pictures have a few penguins floating away as well). National
> Geographic magazine featured a cover story entitled "The Big Thaw," and
> based on what you would see in that issue, you would think there is
> absolutely no debate about rapid and undesirable changes occurring in
> Antarctica all due to the dreaded global warming phenomenon. As we have
> shown over and over, nothing could be further from the truth!
>
> When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the United
> Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) most clearly
> states in their 2007 summary report "Antarctic sea ice extent continues
> to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no
> statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of
> warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the
> region." Furthermore, IPCC just as clearly states "Current global model
> studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for
> widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to
> increased snowfall." It would take anyone with internet access no more
> than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but
> once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly
> happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse advocates.
>
> Another major article on temperature trends in the Antarctic has
> appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research by a
> team of scientists from Ohio State University, the University of
> Illinois, and the Goddard Space Flight Center; the research was funded
> by the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Glaciology
> Program. Monaghan et al. begin their lengthy (21 pages - quite long for
> geophysics) article noting that a previous research team studying
> Antarctica examined "station temperature records for the past 50 years
> and report statistically insignificant temperature fluctuations over
> continental Antarctica excluding the Antarctic Peninsula, with the
> exception of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, which cooled by -0.17 K
> decade-1 for 1958-2000." That is correct - despite all you have heard
> elsewhere on the subject, the South Pole has been cooling over the past
> half century. The previous research team also reported that any warming
> in Antarctica has slowed and the cooling has accelerated in the more
> recent three decades.
>
> According to Monaghan et al., yet another team previously examined
> Antarctic temperatures and "note that prior to 1965 the continent-wide
> annual trends (through 2002) are slightly positive, but after 1965 they
> are mainly negative (despite warming over the Antarctic Peninsula)." One
> of the authors of the Monaghan et al. group had previously examined
> trends in temperature "inferred from skin temperatures from Advanced
> Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments on polar orbiting
> satellites" and found "a statistically insignificant cooling trend over
> continental Antarctica from 1982 to 1998." Monaghan et al. further note
> "recent literature suggests there has been little overall change in
> Antarctic near-surface temperature during the past 5 decades" and "the
> absence of widespread Antarctic temperature increases is consistent with
> studies showing little overall change in other Antarctic climate
> indicators during the past 50 years such as sea ice area and snowfall."
> OK, you get the message - Antarctica is definitely not cooperating with
> this greenhouse scare!
>
> Monaghan fairly note that there is still uncertainty "because of the
> sparse network of continuous, long-term near-surface temperature records
> (about 15 stations on a continent 1 1/2 times as large as the United
> States), there is still considerable uncertainty as to (1) the spatial
> and temporal variability of Antarctic near-surface temperature trends
> and (2) whether the existing network of stations provides a temperature
> record that is representative of the entire continent." Accordingly,
> they introduce a new method for using existing temperature records,
> atmospheric circulation variables, topography, and a sophisticated
> interpolation method to build a better temperature representation for
> the continent.
>
> Now for the bottom line relevant to us. As seen in the figure below
> (Figure 1), the various Antarctic-wide temperature patterns are very
> highly correlated (the new datasets are the "RECON" designation). The
> authors have various versions of their "RECON" time series depending on
> several decisions made by the team, but the bottom line is obvious, the
> is little evidence for warming in Antarctica! They state "All records
> correlate significantly with all other records during all seasons from
> 1982 to 2001. Near-surface temperature trends are statistically
> insignificant (p >0.05) on annual timescales within every data set
> analyzed, for both the longer (1960-2002) and shorter (1982-2001)
> periods."
>
> Figure 1. Annual Antarctic near-surface temperature (K) anomalies (with
> respect to the 1980-1999 mean) for various data sets for (a) 1950-2005
> and (b) 1980-2005. The new temperature datasets developed in the 2008
> article are labeled "RECON" (from Monaghan et al., 2008).
>
> Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming their
> results, the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica
> is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all
> translate into claims that "Antarctica is warming and melting." The
> truth from Antarctica is hard for the greenhouse crusade to accept
> (although certainly they try hard to fit it in), and in the long run,
> the truth from Antarctica might melt away the flimsy, well-publicized
> claims about global climate change-especially the concerns of a rapid
> sea level rise.
>
> Reference:
>
> Monaghan, A. J., D. H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J. C. Comiso (2008),
> Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature,
> Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D04105, doi:10.1029/2007JD009094.
> --
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
> trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
> (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
> vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
> which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
> which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
> the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
> Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Hmmm.... so global warming is not global, nor is it warming.... go
figure.
"00BNZ" <0...@d...com> >
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/
27/antarctica-ain%e2%80%99t-cooperating/
Now BONZO is quoting from Oil Industry Blogs.
Ahahahahahahaha... Talk about desperate for material.
By the way MMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOONNNNN
Did you notice the disingegration of the Wilkins Ice shelf in Antarctica?
It seems to be cooperating with Global Warming quite nicely.
On Apr 6, 9:57 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<J...@E...com> wrote:
> "Tunderbar" <t...@g...com> wrote
>
> > Hmmm.... so global warming is not global, nor is it warming.... go
> > figure.
>
> No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
>
> 1998 14.57 **************************
> 1999 14.33 *****************
> 2000 14.33 *****************
> 2001 14.48 ************************
> 2002 14.56 ***************************
> 2003 14.55 ***************************
> 2004 14.49 *************************
> 2005 14.63 *******************************
> 2006 14.54 ***************************
> 2007 14,57 *****************************
Even without noting that your scaling is childish, it seems
(from your data) that 2007 is EXACTLY the same as
1998. And during the interval China has industrialised.
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
Look at the data. Nothing is happening.
Mark Addinall.
>
> So Fool, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
On Apr 7, 4:55 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<J...@E...com> wrote:
> Addinall dishonestly modifies the provided plot as follows..
Addinall took out the stupid little zeros and loked at the data
provided by a high school
dropout and found.
>
> > 1998 14.57 **************************
> > 1999 14.33 *****************
> > 2000 14.33 *****************
> > 2001 14.48 ************************
> > 2002 14.56 ***************************
> > 2003 14.55 ***************************
> > 2004 14.49 *************************
> > 2005 14.63 *******************************
> > 2006 14.54 ***************************
> > 2007 14,57 *****************************
>
Nothing. Nada. If that is the best you can do to PROVE
global warming your argument is fucked from day one.
That is a flat line.
> Looks like you dishonestly modified the plot Addinall. Here is the
> original...
>
> No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
>
> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
> 2001 14.48 ************************o
> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
> 2007 14,57 *****************************
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > Even without noting that your scaling is childish, it seems
> > (from your data) that 2007 is EXACTLY the same as
> > 1998.
>
> 1997 is the second warmest year in history. 2005 the warmest.
Rubbish.
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > And during the interval China has industrialised.
>
> And is blowing a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> > Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > Look at the data. Nothing is happening.
>
> Look at the linear regression (o)'s. The atmosphere is warmig at a rate of
> about 2'C per century.
Crap.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Perhaps. However my credentials get me employed at the ABS doing
statistics.
I know how to read data sets. The one you provided is a flat line.
Mark Addinall.
"Tunderbar" <t...@g...com> wrote
> Hmmm.... so global warming is not global, nor is it warming.... go
> figure.
No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
2007 14,57 *****************************
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
So Fool, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
On Apr 7, 4:55 am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<J...@E...com> wrote:
> Addinall dishonestly modifies the provided plot as follows..
>
> > 1998 14.57 **************************
> > 1999 14.33 *****************
> > 2000 14.33 *****************
> > 2001 14.48 ************************
> > 2002 14.56 ***************************
> > 2003 14.55 ***************************
> > 2004 14.49 *************************
> > 2005 14.63 *******************************
> > 2006 14.54 ***************************
> > 2007 14,57 *****************************
>
> Looks like you dishonestly modified the plot Addinall. Here is the
> original...
>
> No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
>
> 1998 14.57 **************************0
> 1999 14.33 *****************0
> 2000 14.33 *****************0
> 2001 14.48 ************************0
> 2002 14.56 ***************************0
> 2003 14.55 ***************************0
> 2004 14.49 *************************0
> 2005 14.63 *******************************0
> 2006 14.54 ***************************0
> 2007 14,57 *****************************0
Nothing at all. Hardly anything in nature can
follow a linear relationship, and that data my boy,
is as close to a flat line that you can get.
Here are the figures for the years 2002 -2004
> 2002 14.56 ***************************0
> 2003 14.55 ***************************0
> 2004 14.49 *************************0
Care to plot a line?
Here are the figures for the years 2005 - 2007
> 2005 14.63 *******************************0
> 2006 14.54 ***************************0
> 2007 14,57 *****************************0
Care to plot a line?
Here are the figures for the years 1998 - 2000
> 1998 14.57 **************************0
> 1999 14.33 *****************0
> 2000 14.33 *****************0
Care to plot a line?
Using a simplistic linear regression on an incomplete
set of data is meaningless. It might suck in the great
unwashed, but fools no-one with any level of statistical
ability.
The sample I just provided from your data, in three sets
of three observations, tells a different story than the one
you wish to promote. Doesn't it?
Here's a better one for your side (the insane one)
> 1999 14.33 *****************0
> 2000 14.33 *****************0
> 2001 14.48 ************************0
GOLLY! WE ALL ARE GONNA DIE!!!
In fact, we should have all died in 2005.
You should concentrate on finishing high school.
Mark Addinall.
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > Even without noting that your scaling is childish, it seems
> > (from your data) that 2007 is EXACTLY the same as
> > 1998.
>
> 1997 is the second warmest year in history. 2005 the warmest.
Crap. Pure and simple bullshit.
Show me any scientist that is willing to state that 2005
has been the warmest year in the record of this planet
and I will happily tear him/her to shreds in a public
forum.
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > And during the interval China has industrialised.
>
> And is blowing a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> > Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>
> > Look at the data. Nothing is happening.
>
> Look at the linear regression (o)'s. The atmosphere is warmig at a rate of
> about 2'C per century.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Addinall dishonestly modifies the provided plot as follows..
> 1998 14.57 **************************
> 1999 14.33 *****************
> 2000 14.33 *****************
> 2001 14.48 ************************
> 2002 14.56 ***************************
> 2003 14.55 ***************************
> 2004 14.49 *************************
> 2005 14.63 *******************************
> 2006 14.54 ***************************
> 2007 14,57 *****************************
Looks like you dishonestly modified the plot Addinall. Here is the
original...
No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
2007 14,57 *****************************
"Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
> Even without noting that your scaling is childish, it seems
> (from your data) that 2007 is EXACTLY the same as
> 1998.
1997 is the second warmest year in history. 2005 the warmest.
"Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
> And during the interval China has industrialised.
And is blowing a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere.
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
"Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
> Look at the data. Nothing is happening.
Look at the linear regression (o)'s. The atmosphere is warmig at a rate of
about 2'C per century.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNN
"V-for-Vendicar" <J...@E...com> wrote in message
news:dd9Kj.50431$612.32552@read1.cgocable.net...
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 **************************0
>> 1999 14.33 *****************0
>> 2000 14.33 *****************0
>> 2001 14.48 ************************0
>> 2002 14.56 ***************************0
>> 2003 14.55 ***************************0
>> 2004 14.49 *************************0
>> 2005 14.63 *******************************0
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************0
>> 2007 14,57 *****************************0
>
> I see that you have dishonestly altered the plot yet again.
>
> Here is the original.
>
>> No problem. Here are the figures for the last decade.
>>
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>> 2007 14.57 *****************************
Exactly what are the ">"s?
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Nothing at all.
>
> Just a warming of roughly 2'C per century...
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Hardly anything in nature can follow a linear relationship
>
> A statement that illustrates your profound ignorance.
>
> In reality over a sufficiently chosen time frame, everything in nature
> follows a linear relationship.
>
> I don't think your KKKonservative Liedeology has managed to disproved
> Calculus.
>
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> and that data my boy, is as close to a flat line that you can get.
>
> It shows a increase of approximately 2'C per century. (Standard Linerar
> Regresssion)
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNN
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Here are the figures for the years 2002 -2004
>
>> 2002 14.56 ***************************0
>> 2003 14.55 ***************************0
>> 2004 14.49 *************************0
>
>> Care to plot a line?
>
> I could, but the correlation coefficient would be too small for it to be
> meaningful.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
>
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Here are the figures for the years 2005 - 2007
>
>> > 2005 14.63 *******************************0
>> > 2006 14.54 ***************************0
>> > 2007 14,57 *****************************0
>
>> Care to plot a line?
>
> I could, but the correlation coefficient would be too small for it to be
> meaningful.
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Here are the figures for the years 1998 - 2000
>
>>> 1998 14.57 **************************0
>>> 1999 14.33 *****************0
>>> 2000 14.33 *****************0
>
>> Care to plot a line?
>
> I could, but the correlation coefficient would be too small for it to be
> meaningful.
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Using a simplistic linear regression on an incomplete
>> set of data is meaningless.
>
> Since it is a time series, and time is infinite, the set will never be
> complete. Hence by your AHAHAHAHAHA "logic" performing a regression on a
> time series is always meaningless.
>
> MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
>
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> It might suck in the great unwashed, but fools no-one with any level of
>> statistical
>> ability.
>
> So you have been utterly fooled then.
>
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> The sample I just provided from your data, in three sets
>> of three observations, tells a different story than the one
>> you wish to promote. Doesn't it?
>
> Nope. Since the three subsets are statistically insignificant.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
>
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> You should concentrate on finishing high school.
>
> Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Then went on to quantum
> mechanics.
>
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
>
>> 2007 is the second warmest year in history. 2005 the warmest.
>
>
> "Addinall" <a...@a...org> wrote
>> Crap. Pure and simple bullshit.
>
>
> 2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
> LiveScience Staff Writer
>
> January 16, 2008
>
>
> The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
> NASA
> scientists announced today.
>
> Climatologists at the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
> in
> New York used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite
> measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for
> earlier
> years to construct a record of global average temperatures going back for
> over a
> century.
>
> The GISS analysis has 1934, 1998 and 2005 tied as the warmest years in the
> United States (with 2005 being the warmest globally).
>
> The eight warmest years globally in the past century have all occurred since
> 1998, and the 14 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.
>
> The greatest observed warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, which
> experienced
> a record sea ice melt this summer, opening up the fabled Northwest Passage
> for
> the first time.
>
> "As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong
> warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to
> the
> effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said NASA GISS Director
> James
> E. Hansen.
>
> A minor flaw in the GISS record discovered last year did not affect this
> analysis, the scientists noted.
>
> Hansen says that warming can be expected to continue, with another record
> warm
> year coming soon, though it is unlikely to be 2008.
>
> "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly
> exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the
> time of
> the next El Nino , because of the background warming trend attributable to
> continuing increases of greenhouse gases," Hansen said.
>
> El Nino tends to have a warming effect on temperatures in many areas, while
> the
> volcanic ash that an eruption spews into the air has a cooling effect.
>
> While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
> proceed
> constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
> generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
> trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
>
>
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
SOME BASTARDS DO NOT SEEM TO LIKE THEIR MINING PIONEERS VERY MUCH ! Let's Pray then !!!
Re: Latest RSS Satellite Data Show Continued Warming.
Global Cooling News: Record Cold In Saskatoon
Re: Big is back: As pump prices plunge, SUV sales surge
Re: 2008: Another Grim Year for the Global Warmers
Celebrate 'Carbon Hour' With Gunns, Paul Lennon and Kevin Rudd
Compulsory Land Acquisitions For A Mates Pulp Mill
Up