"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

>

>

>>>>> 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.