Re: ...Weather Forecasting reaching 'Dizzying' Heights!
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
sci.space.policy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: ...Weather Forecasting reaching 'Dizzying' Heights!         

Group: sci.space.policy · Group Profile
Author: Ouroboros_Rex
Date: Apr 7, 2008 17:24

"Mr Right" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dc99dad-39b4-4651-a564-1820beefb593@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 4:17 am, Roger Coppock adnc.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:19 pm, Bill Ward REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 11:25:07 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 10:53 am, "Terrell Miller" bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> "Roger Coppock" adnc.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>news:2f3439d8-046d-456f-8ab8-97a068ccb261@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Apr 5, 9:06 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 11:17:39 -0400, in a place far, far away,
>>>>> "jonathan" write.instead.net> made the phosphor on my
>>>>> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>>>>> Modern 'Science' marches ahead~
>
>>>>>>ORLANDO --
>
>>>>>>"We're in a busy period of hurricane activity that will inflict
>>>>>>unimaginable damage, but global warming is not the cause leading
>>>>>>researchers told the nation's foremost forecasters and other
>>>>>>experts
>>>>>>Friday."
>
>>>>>>"Insurance experts warned Friday that the nation soon will absorb
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>hurricane that causes more than $100 billion in damage, and
>>>>>>Landsea
>>>>>>has estimated that a Category 5 hurricane could produce at least
>>>>>>$140
>>>>>>billion in damage to South Florida.
>>>>>> (* but global warming is not the cause)
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> If it is your fantasy, despite the clear statements of people who
>>>>> study such things, that global warming is the cause, then how do
>>>>> you
>>>>> explain the fact that this is happening in a period during which
>>>>> the
>>>>> planet has been *cooling* for the past decade?
>>>>>It has? You simply can not say that with statistical confidence.
>>>>>Below, are several graphs of global mean surface and near surface
>>>>>temperatures. Look at them, and you will find several short
>>>>>intervals
>>>>>in the past that your rules would also define as cooling periods,
>>>>>yet
>>>>>the long term trend is clearly warming.
>
>>>> Michael Crichton tried that stunt in his "State of fear" novel. He
>>>> took
>>>> a small slice of a long-term graph, and that slice showed
>>>> temperatures
>>>> falling at the same time CO2 was rising, exactly the opposite of the
>>>> predictions for carbon emissions causing global warming.
>
>>>> And he used that snippet to deliberately ridicule the greenhouse-gas
>>>> theory.
>>> .
>>>> Trouble is, if you look at the actual whole graph, there is an
>>>> unmistakable correlation between the graphs for temp and CO2. It's
>>>> just
>>>> that there is a lag of a few years between the two plotlines. They
>>>> are
>>>> eerily identical, just the temp line shifted over to teh right by a
>>>> few
>>>> years.
>
>>>> So Crichton picked a span of the graph where the temp trend was down
>>>> for
>>>> a few years at the same time as the CO2 trend was rising. And voila,
>>>> through the magic of Excel he could make it look like there was
>>>> either
>>>> no correlation, or that there was in fact the opposite correlation
>>>> from
>>>> the one the environmentalists were warning about.
>
>>> Yes, the process is called "Cherry Picking." Do it in a grade 7 to 12
>>> science fair and they will disqualify you. Do it in grad school and
>>> you
>>> will wash out. It simply is not science. It is lying by omission.
>
>>> In my article below is a correlation between CO2 concentration and
>>> global
>>> mean temperature.
>
>>> CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses
>
>>> Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses.
>>> It
>>> produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend
>>> together.
>
>>> (Those who are new to statistical correlation and "R squared" will
>>> find a
>>> tutorial on the subject here:
>
>
>
>>> Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed
>>> relationships.)
>
>>> When applied to a time series of global mean surface temperatures and
>>> data
>>> from prospective global warming causes covering the same time period,
>>> correlation can help locate the cause of the observed global warming.
>>> Low
>>> "R squared" values, those near zero, can, by themselves, totally rule
>>> out
>>> a prospective cause. High "R squared" values indicate that a
>>> prospective
>>> cause is very likely, but do not, by themselves, 'prove' something
>>> caused
>>> the warming. (Experimental science rarely 'proves' something like a
>>> mathematical proof does.)
>
>>> Below are directly observed data for global mean surface temperature,
>>> CO2
>>> concentration, and sunspots for the last 50 years. This is as long as
>>> the
>>> longest directly observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
>
>>> The R^2 value for the correlation of CO2 and planetary surface
>>> temperature
>>> is 0.78. The simple rising line showing heating for increasing CO2
>>> explains a lot of the variance in the global mean temperature. The
>>> relationship between CO2 and global temperature is very strong and the
>>> anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing theory is well
>>> supported by
>>> these data.
>
>>> The R^2 value for sunspots and and planetary surface temperature is
>>> very
>>> near zero. These data clearly do not support any relationship between
>>> sunspot numbers and global mean surface temperature over the last 50
>>> years. It is very unlikely that sunspots have anything to do with the
>>> current global warming.
>
>>> This test applies very easily to all other claims for global warming
>>> causes. It will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.
>
>>> -.-. --.- Roger Coppock
>
>>> =-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>> The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS adjusted J-D
>>> yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at:
>
>
>>> The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data from the
>>> Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at:
>
>
>>> "Sunspots" are the yearly averages of the monthly means in the NOAA
>>> NGDC
>>> "MONTHLY" file. They are available at the FTP site accessed through
>>> this
>>> web page:
>
>
>>> Year Temp CO2 Sunspots
>>> 1958 14.08 315.33 184.5917
>>> 1959 14.06 315.98 158.75
>>> 1960 13.99 316.91 112.275
>>> 1961 14.08 317.65 53.8833
>>> 1962 14.04 318.46 37.6
>>> 1963 14.08 318.99 27.8917
>>> 1964 13.79 319.20 10.2
>>> 1965 13.89 320.03 15.0583
>>> 1966 13.97 321.37 46.875
>>> 1967 14.00 322.18 93.6667
>>> 1968 13.96 323.05 105.8917
>>> 1969 14.08 324.62 105.5583
>>> 1970 14.03 325.68 104.6917
>>> 1971 13.90 326.32 66.65
>>> 1972 14.00 327.46 68.9333
>>> 1973 14.14 329.68 38.15
>>> 1974 13.92 330.17 34.4083
>>> 1975 13.95 331.14 15.4583
>>> 1976 13.84 332.06 12.55
>>> 1977 14.13 333.78 27.4833
>>> 1978 14.02 335.40 92.6583
>>> 1979 14.09 336.78 155.275
>>> 1980 14.18 338.70 154.65
>>> 1981 14.27 340.11 140.45
>>> 1982 14.05 340.98 116.2917
>>> 1983 14.26 342.84 66.6333
>>> 1984 14.09 344.20 45.85
>>> 1985 14.06 345.87 17.9417
>>> 1986 14.13 347.19 13.4
>>> 1987 14.27 348.98 29.225
>>> 1988 14.31 351.45 100
>>> 1989 14.19 352.89 157.7917
>>> 1990 14.38 354.16 142.2917
>>> 1991 14.35 355.48 145.775
>>> 1992 14.12 356.27 94.4833
>>> 1993 14.14 356.96 54.7333
>>> 1994 14.24 358.63 29.8667
>>> 1995 14.38 360.63 17.5
>>> 1996 14.30 362.37 8.625
>>> 1997 14.40 363.47 21.4833
>>> 1998 14.57 366.50 64.2083
>>> 1999 14.33 368.14 93.175
>>> 2000 14.33 369.41 119.5333
>>> 2001 14.48 371.07 110.925
>>> 2002 14.56 373.16 104.0917
>>> 2003 14.55 375.80 63.5667
>>> 2004 14.49 377.55 40.4417
>>> 2005 14.62 379.75 29.7833
>>> 2006 14.54 381.85 15.1833
>>> 2007 14.57 383.72 7.5417
>
>>> =-=-=-=-=-=-= "R" Program Outputs =-=-=-=-=-=-= The following are
>>> outputs
>>> of the "R" statistical program: For information on "R," please see:
>
>
>>> --------
>
>>> Call:
>>> lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe)
>
>>> Residuals:
>>> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
>>> -0.2316612 -0.0805322 0.0185249 0.0763159 0.1798386
>
>>> Coefficients:
>>> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>>> (Intercept) 1.10008e+01 2.41721e-01 45.5103 < 2.22e-16 *** CO2
>>> 9.24797e-03 7.01018e-04 13.1922 < 2.22e-16 *** ---
>>> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
>>> Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple
>>> R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313 F-statistic: 174.034
>>> on
>>> 1 and 48 DF, p-value: < 2.220e-16
>
>>> --------
>
>>> Call:
>>> lm(formula = Temp ~ Sunspots, data = aframe)
>
>>> Residuals:
>>> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
>>> -0.3909495 -0.1523184 -0.0514594 0.1445919 0.4380756
>
>>> Coefficients:
>>> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
>>> (Intercept) 1.41804e+01 5.39054e-02 263.06149 < 2e-16 *** Sunspots
>>> 4.97803e-05 6.18766e-04 0.08045 0.93621 ---
>>> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
>>> Residual standard error: 0.217902 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple
>>> R-Squared: 0.000134823, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0206957 F-statistic:
>>> 0.00647235 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 0.936213
>
>> Roger's posturing notwithstanding, the cross-correlation of CO2 and
>> temperature in the ice core data show the temperature changes first
>> (leads), then the CO2 changes several hundred years later (lags). That
>> requires the temperature to be the cause, not the effect.
>
> Or that CO2 and temperature are closely coupled.
> Each causing the other and in these ice core cases
> there was a third trigger. That CO2 causes climate
> warming is not in disupute It is directly measured
> almost daily. That is today, here and now, not
> hundreds of thousands of years in the past.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

< That CO2 causes climate warming is not in disupute


..Only from denialist liars like yourself.
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!