April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.
Roger Coppock
Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.
Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:
The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
yet it was 14.41. <- above trend line
Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.
Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg
Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.
The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
The Variance is 0.07121.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.
Rxy 0.81344 Rxy^2 0.66168
TEMP = 13.591411 + (0.005829 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 248.381941
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
yet it was 14.41. <-- above the trend line
The sum of the residuals is 16.318899
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59559 * e^(.0004174 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 16.261573
Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 14.64 0.670 2.51
2005 14.64 0.670 2.51
2002 14.58 0.610 2.28
1998 14.56 0.590 2.21
2004 14.52 0.550 2.06
2000 14.52 0.550 2.06
2003 14.49 0.520 1.95
1990 14.48 0.510 1.91
2006 14.46 0.490 1.84
1991 14.44 0.470 1.76
2008 14.41 0.440 1.65 <--
2001 14.39 0.420 1.57
1995 14.39 0.420 1.57
MEAN 13.970 0.000 0.00
1885 13.65 -0.320 -1.20
1903 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1896 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1884 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1894 13.61 -0.360 -1.35
1887 13.61 -0.360 -1.35
1917 13.60 -0.370 -1.39
1907 13.59 -0.380 -1.43
1904 13.59 -0.380 -1.43
1908 13.58 -0.390 -1.46
1918 13.57 -0.400 -1.50
1892 13.56 -0.410 -1.54
1909 13.55 -0.420 -1.58
1911 13.52 -0.450 -1.69
The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1540 months of data on this data set:
-- 661 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
chemist
But I bet 2008 will be cooler than 2007 whilst fossil fuel use is
going through the roof .
V-for-Vendicar
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> But I bet 2008 will be cooler than 2007 whilst fossil fuel use is
> going through the roof .
That appears likely given the ongoing LaNina and the fact that last year
tied with the second warmest year on record.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******************o***************
1959 14.06 ********************o************
1960 13.99 *********************o******
1961 14.08 **********************o************
1962 14.04 ***********************o********
1963 14.08 ************************o**********
1964 13.79 **************===========o
1965 13.89 *********************====o
1966 13.97 **************************o
1967 14.00 ***************************o*
1968 13.96 **************************==o
1969 14.08 *****************************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************************o
1971 13.90 **********************=========o
1972 14.00 *****************************===o
1973 14.14 ********************************o******
1974 13.92 ***********************==========o
1975 13.95 *************************=========o
1976 13.84 ******************=================o
1977 14.13 ************************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************************============o
1993 14.14 ***************************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************************o**
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 14.62
*************************************************************o**********
2006 14.54
**************************************************************o****
2007 14.57
***************************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
More_Flaps
Roger Coppock wrote:
> April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.
>
> Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
> above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
> global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.
>
> Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
> slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
> truth is published here every month in this section of these
> reports:
>
> The month of April in the year 2008,
> is linearly projected to be 14.343,
> yet it was 14.41.
>
> The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
> The Variance is 0.07121.
> The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.
>
So, according to your data the current temperature is not
significantly different from the mean....
Cheers
More_Flaps
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
So, you graph of massaged data shows no significant change in
temperature since 1990?
Where's the accelerating hockystick?
Cheers
V-for-Vendicar
"More_Flaps" <More...@gmail.com> wrote
> So, you graph of massaged data shows no significant change in
> temperature since 1990?
Well restricting the data to 1990 up the warming is even more rapid. The
slope (rate of warming) is twice what it is over the entire 50 years.
Since 1990 the Global Average temp has changed by .37'C or .67'F.
At that rate, global average temperatures will 2.1'C higher than they are
today, in 100 years. More actually since the rate of warming is increasing.
View with mono spaced font.
0000 14.38 ****************o***********
0001 14.35 *****************o********
0002 14.12 *********==========o
0003 14.14 ***********=========o
0004 14.24 ******************====o
0005 14.38 ***********************o****
0006 14.30 **********************===o
0007 14.40 **************************o**
0008 14.57 ****************************o************
0009 14.33 ************************=====o
0010 14.33 ************************=======o
0011 14.48 ********************************o**
0012 14.56 **********************************o*****
0013 14.55 ***********************************o****
0014 14.49 ***********************************==o
0015 14.62 **************************************o*****
0016 14.54 ***************************************=o
0017 14.57 *****************************************o
Y = Mx+B
M = .02159948 B = 14.22474
Correlation Coefficient .7693629
Residuals
Positive total .7121944 Negative total .7122011
James
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:88a01fca-c9e3-4113...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.
>
> Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
> above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
> global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.
>
> Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
> slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say.
And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your monthly
reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
making shit up)
James
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:IQJWj.949$79....@read1.cgocable.net...
You have just confirmed you are full of shit.
hanson
news:IQJWj.949$79....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:482c69f0$0$11193$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
VD- You have just confirmed you are full of shit.
>
hanson wrote:
Gauche & loud communist, US-expatriate & pauper Scott Nudds
aka "VD-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
aka VD-Scotty, the GLOBAL COOLING DENIALIST, with his red
pants frozen in snow and ice...ahaha... who had bragged that he
**never** drove & much less ever owned an automobile, Scuttled
his Nutts, which is why the facts according to edicts of his Green
Bible are posted here for his benefit:
>
Here is the COOLING. Here are the global average temperatures
since 1958. --- "o" = trend line. --- Look at all those "o"'s lined up
there. The global temperature trend is *down*, **down**, DOWN!
And most recently the rate of DE-crease is about 2'C per century.
>
2007 14.08 *************o***************
2006 14.06 **************o************
2005 13.99 ***************o******
2004 14.08 ****************o************
2003 14.04 *****************o********
2002 14.08 ******************o**********
2001 13.79 ********========o
2000 13.89 ****************====o
1999 13.97 ***********************o
1998 14.00 ************************o*
1997 13.96 ********************===o
1996 14.08 **************************o*****
1995 14.03 ***************************o
1994 13.90 **************=========o
1993 14.00 ************************===o
1992 14.14 ******************************o******
1991 13.92 *****************==========o
1990 13.95 *******************=========o
1989 13.84 ************==============o
1988 14.13 *********************************o*
1987 14.02 ************************======o
1986 14.09 *****************************===o
1985 14.18 *********************************o**
1984 14.27 **********************************o****
1983 14.05 ************************========o
1982 14.26 **************************************o**
1981 14.09 *****************************======o
1980 14.06 ***************************========o
1979 14.13 *******************************======o
1978 14.27 ***************************************o**
1977 14.31 ****************************************o**
1976 14.19 **********************************=====o
1975 14.38 ******************************************o***
1974 14.35 ********************************************o**
1973 14.12 ***************************============o
1972 14.14 *****************************===========o
1971 14.24 ***************************************=====o
1970 14.38 ***********************************************o***
1969 14.30 *******************************************===o
1968 14.40 ************************************************o**
1967 14.57 *************************************************o...
1966 14.33 *********************************************===o
1965 14.33 ********************************************====o
1964 14.48 ***************************************************o...
1963 14.56 ****************************************************o...
1962 14.55 *****************************************************o...
1961 14.49 ******************************************************o...
1960 14.62 *******************************************************o...
1959 14.54 ********************************************************o...
1958 14.57 *********************************************************o...
Correlation Coefficient -.8529209 --
Above is VD-Scotty's table which has been corrected for his
benefit because his green Bible says:
>
Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
>
The most intriguing fact, AFAIAC, is that EVERYBODY has become
a convert to the MO of the Green Bible by now... for their own agenda,
from the far Left to the far Right, from Lenders to Creditors,
from Union bosses to Wallstreet CEO, from Jews to Muslims,
from secular Heads of State to the Pope, and most ominous of all this:
from Elementary School pupils to their Teachers... WORLDWIDE!...
>
Moral of the Story:.. EVERYBODY is correct!... in their own mind!
Thanks for the laughs!.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
>
PS:
More fun in VD-Scotty's world, where he Scuttles his Nutts:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0d934ebcc7b3fd1f>
wherein she says: --- Dear Vendicar ----,
... you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off and then the
other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts". So, See,
Short-dick/Quick-cumers like you are not best sellers in the adult
movie biz. I hope you'll understand that. Biz is biz. I'm sorry, dear.
With love, --- Naomi Goldstein-Goldman
Roger Coppock
If you had scientific training, you would understand
statistical variation. It takes about three decades
to establish a climate trend, you have only two years.
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?
Roger Coppock
NO.
>
> Cheers
Whata Fool
Did Woger actually say 879 are below the norm and only 661 are
above the norm?
And using the 1950-1980 time span for the norm is a crock, only
a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.
But with Hansen in control of the numbers, anything is possible.
Roger Coppock
> chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
> were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.
Show us how you would determine the data set norm then, Mr. Fool.
James
Your claim stupid.
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c75c45ad-044f-4262...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 9:47 am, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:88a01fca-c9e3-4113...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.
>
> > > Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
> > > above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
> > > global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.
>
> > > Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
> > > slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say.
>
> > And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your
> > monthly
> > reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
> > making shit up)
> >Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?
>
> Your claim stupid.
Again now James,
specifically what claim is stupid, and why?
John M.
>
> Gauche & ........
<snip of pointless trolling>
I used to think on reading some of your posts elsewhere, that you
actually knew a thing or two, ahaha. Was I wrong?
So why not give us the benefit of your wisdom (if I'm right on that
score) rather than keep up this pointless, valueless and (at worst)
mindless tirade about political views which differ somewhat, but not a
lot, from yours.
John M.
Tut, tut, Roger. Have you been hacking into NASA's network altering
the files of historical temperature measurements? You really are a
naughty boy.
Whata Fool
>On May 15, 7:45?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> ?wrote:
>> >On May 14, 8:08 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> >> April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.
>>
>> >> Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
>> >> above the 129-year trend line. ? In the long term therefore,
>> >> global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.
>>
>> >> Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
>> >> slowing down. ?"Global warming ended in 1998," they say. ?The
>> >> truth is published here every month in this section of these
>> >> reports:
>>
>> >> ? ?The month of April in the year 2008,
>> >> ? ?is linearly projected to be 14.343,
>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? yet it was 14.41. <- above trend line
>>
>> >> Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
>> >> If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
>> >> would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
>> >> and do so for a year or more. ?So far this has not happened,
>> >> not for even two months in a row.
>>
>> >> Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
>> >> temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
>> >> This is simple geometry. ?Each above the line measured global
>> >> temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
>> >> new point joins the data. ?This pattern is now 5 decades old.
>> >> Please see:
>>
>> >>http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg
>>
>> >> Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
>> >> surface temperatures continue to rise.
>>
>> >> These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>> >> They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
>> >> taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
>> >> over the last 129 years. ?Yes, the land data are corrected for
>> >> the urban heat island effect. ?The sea data do not need to be.
>> >> There are few urban centers in the sea.
>>
>> >> The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
>> >> The Variance is 0.07121.
>> >> The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.
>>
>> >> Rxy 0.81344 ? Rxy^2 0.66168
>> >> TEMP = 13.591411 + (0.005829 * (YEAR-1879))
>> >> Degrees of Freedom = 127 ? ? ? ? F = 248.381941
>> >> Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
>> >> 0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
>> >> 100%!
>>
>> >> The month of April in the year 2008,
>> >> is linearly projected to be 14.343,
>> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?yet it was 14.41. <-- above the trend line
>> >> The sum of the residuals is 16.318899
>>
>> >> Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
>> >> TEMP = 13.59559 * e^(.0004174 * (YEAR-1879))
>> >> The sum of the residuals is 16.261573
>>
>> >> ? Rank of the months of April
>> >> Year ? Temp C ? Anomaly ? Z score
>> >> 2007 ? 14.64 ? ? 0.670 ? ? 2.51
>> >> 2005 ? 14.64 ? ? 0.670 ? ? 2.51
>> >> 2002 ? 14.58 ? ? 0.610 ? ? 2.28
>> >> 1998 ? 14.56 ? ? 0.590 ? ? 2.21
>> >> 2004 ? 14.52 ? ? 0.550 ? ? 2.06
>> >> 2000 ? 14.52 ? ? 0.550 ? ? 2.06
>> >> 2003 ? 14.49 ? ? 0.520 ? ? 1.95
>> >> 1990 ? 14.48 ? ? 0.510 ? ? 1.91
>> >> 2006 ? 14.46 ? ? 0.490 ? ? 1.84
>> >> 1991 ? 14.44 ? ? 0.470 ? ? 1.76
>> >> 2008 ? 14.41 ? ? 0.440 ? ? 1.65 <--
>> >> 2001 ? 14.39 ? ? 0.420 ? ? 1.57
>> >> 1995 ? 14.39 ? ? 0.420 ? ? 1.57
>> >> MEAN ? 13.970 ? ?0.000 ? ? 0.00
>> >> 1885 ? 13.65 ? ?-0.320 ? ?-1.20
>> >> 1903 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
>> >> 1896 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
>> >> 1884 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
>> >> 1894 ? 13.61 ? ?-0.360 ? ?-1.35
>> >> 1887 ? 13.61 ? ?-0.360 ? ?-1.35
>> >> 1917 ? 13.60 ? ?-0.370 ? ?-1.39
>> >> 1907 ? 13.59 ? ?-0.380 ? ?-1.43
>> >> 1904 ? 13.59 ? ?-0.380 ? ?-1.43
>> >> 1908 ? 13.58 ? ?-0.390 ? ?-1.46
>> >> 1918 ? 13.57 ? ?-0.400 ? ?-1.50
>> >> 1892 ? 13.56 ? ?-0.410 ? ?-1.54
>> >> 1909 ? 13.55 ? ?-0.420 ? ?-1.58
>> >> 1911 ? 13.52 ? ?-0.450 ? ?-1.69
>>
>> >> The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
>> >> on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
>> >> data set norm of 14 C.
>> >> There are 1540 months of data on this data set:
>> >> ? -- 661 of them are at or above the norm.
>> >> ? -- 879 of them are below the norm.
>> >> This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
>> >> world. ?It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
>> >> of confidence. ?A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
>> >> meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
>> >> otherwise expect it to continue.
>>
>>
>> ? ? ?And using the 1950-1980 time span for the norm is a crock, only
>> a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
>> were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.
>
>Show us how you would determine the data set norm then, Mr. Fool.
The data set is not and never was of sufficient precision
to use in energy accounting, there is no hour by hour records for
most of the data set, and daily max and min is meaningless for
energy calculations.
Climate is not a precise temperature, it is a "typical" value,
within a wide range.
But the kicker that makes your efforts totally worthless is the
fact that all aspects that did suggest a warmer world during the
20th century must level off, which is what I think has happened,
statistical errors, equipment and method changes, and even any
conscious or subconscious cheating by Hansen or anybody absolutely
must level off, the data will win out.
But I don't like cold weather, and I see no reason for man
to suffer in order to save the polar bear, it would not make me
unhappy if the whole world had the climate of Hawaii, so if that
makes me a bad boy, sorry.
The polar bear will probably survive in a higher percentage
than man, if only man would stop using high power rifles to kill them,
and if people have been depending on melting ice for the water supply,
they were kidding themselves, they need to do whatever necessary to
get to a more dependable source.
The Global Warming fad has to be the most stupid thing ever
thought up, and the real scientists that have been suckered in or
coerced into subscribing to such an imprecise and flawed program
will be very upset with themselves when they see the light.
Without UHI, you have nothing, temperature ranges within even
20 degrees of "normal" _ARE_ "typical".
I feel for you, but I can't reach you. I would expect when
you see the light you will be a vocal opponent of the whole GW mess.
But just my opinion.
hanson
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> who wrote
in message
news:ada50c8f-5985-47a6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
that he is a pinko green John the English pauper just like,
or league with his bro Scott Nudds aka V-for-Vendicar.
>
> On May 15, 8:16 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> Gauche & ........
> <snip of pointless trolling>
>
> I used to think on reading some of your posts elsewhere, that you
> actually knew a thing or two, ahaha. Was I wrong?
> So why not give us the benefit of your wisdom (if I'm right on that
> score) rather than keep up this pointless, valueless and (at worst)
> mindless tirade about political views which differ somewhat,
> but not a lot, from yours.
>
ahahahaha... John, I don't know whether you were wrong or not,
or even whether you are a GLOBAL COOLING DENIALIST like
VD Scotty, but here is what you obviouoisly like to hear again,
since we are staring into the face of an encore of the Maunder
Minimum, a little Ice Age:
>
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:IQJWj.949$79....@read1.cgocable.net...
about the impressions that His world makes on VD Scotty himself.
>
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:482c69f0$0$11193$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
James
The title of this thread says it all. It's an opinion by you based on
the questionable data. Even 1951 to 1980 is a best estimate according to
their own web site. You claim that UHI is taken into account when there
is no data for 129 years of it. Other than that the surface record has
changed a lot from place to place by leaving all that equipment in the
same place for decades while growth has continued to bastardize the
readings.
So I stand by the statement that it is not reliable and for you to
insist that if I have better data then I should produce it is stupid.
Just because you have no other source of data, taken with better
methodology, doesn't mean that what you have is reliable because you can
wave your statistical wand and come up with melodramatic statements like
you have been doing every month.
As far as I know, GISS is not making the same melodramatic announcement
that you do every month or it would most likely be relayed like
clockwork on the evening news and published daily in a little box with
the weather in the newspapers.
V-for-Vendicar
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> You have just confirmed you are full of shit.
As someone who is trained in the sciences, I am bound to measurement as
the final arbitor of reality.
As a member of the KKKonservative Liedeology James ane the other
Denialists are bound only by their disjoint, disconnected, and dishonest
political faith.
Meanwhile, back here in the Reality Based Community...
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
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 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
V-for-Vendicar
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
> Gauche & loud communist, US-expatriate & pauper Scott Nudds
> aka "VD-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
I see, I am a communist because I am a scientist.
Gotcha,,,
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
V-for-Vendicar
>>Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote
> Your claim stupid.
His claim is a mathematical analysis.
If you had a brain you could perform the same steps yourself and compute
the same result.
So what is your objection based upon if not faith in your own ignorance?
Meanwhile back here in the Reality based community...
Steve Thomas
Well i thought your and your buddy V-for were saying there has been
no cooling.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John M.
> Thanks for giving me the microphone, "John M.",
> in messagenews:ada50c8f-5985-47a6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> that he is a pinko green John the English pauper just like,
> or league with his bro Scott Nudds aka V-for-Vendicar.
>
> > On May 15, 8:16 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >> Gauche & ........
> > <snip of pointless trolling>
>
> John wrote:
> > I used to think on reading some of your posts elsewhere, that you
> > actually knew a thing or two, ahaha. Was I wrong?
> > So why not give us the benefit of your wisdom (if I'm right on that
> > score) rather than keep up this pointless, valueless and (at worst)
> > mindless tirade about political views which differ somewhat,
> > but not a lot, from yours.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahahaha... John, I don't know whether you were wrong or not,
Yup. I was wrong. No sign of "wisdom" from ahaha. Which is why I have
gone <snip> to save him further embarassment.
<snip>
V-for-Vendicar
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote
> Well i thought your and your buddy V-for were saying there has been
> no cooling.
My tea is cooling. That isn't global climate either.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
hanson
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/58cd93f470dd194c
The Gauche & loud communist, US-expatriate & pauper Scott Nudds
aka "VD-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
aka VD-Scotty, the GLOBAL COOLING DENIALIST, with his red
pants frozen in snow and ice...ahaha... who had bragged that he
**never** drove & much less ever owned an automobile, Scuttled
>
VD Scotty wrote
I see, I am a communist because I am a scientist.
Gotcha,,,
>
... ahahaha... on the former fact you are right but there
is no, zero, zilch and nada evidence of the latter one
in you, and to boot you "Gotch-it" wrong. Here is the
proper chart for you:
>
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958.
The global temperature trend is *down*, **down**, DOWN!
century.
>
V for Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> But the kicker that makes your efforts totally worthless is the
> fact that all aspects that did suggest a warmer world during the
> 20th century must level off, which is what I think has happened,
> statistical errors, equipment and method changes, and even any
> conscious or subconscious cheating by Hansen or anybody absolutely
> must level off, the data will win out.
And that is why KKKonservatives are ultimately losers.
V for Vendicar
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
> VD Scotty wrote
> I see, I am a communist because I am a scientist.
> Gotcha,,,
Pesticides blamed for plummeting salmon stocks
12:52 09 June 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Ewen Callaway
A weak mix of pesticides in river water dampens a salmon's sense of smell,
say
researchers. In experiments, Steelhead rainbow trout exposed to low levels
of 10
common agricultural pesticides could not perceive changes in levels of a
predator's scent.
"You can imagine if a fish is unable to detect just how close it is to a
[wading] bear, it's a problem," says Keith Tierney, a toxicologist who led
the
study while at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia.
A depressed sense of smell might also keep fish from finding mates and food.
Trout are closely related to salmon, and, though the theory is unproven,
pesticides may be a cause of plummeting salmon stocks in Canada and the US,
Tierney says.
Fisheries researchers have long suspected that pesticides can deaden fishes'
olfactory sense. But most of the evidence was based on fish exposed to
artificially high levels of a single chemical and for a short period.
In the wild, however, salmon swim through waters polluted with low levels of
pesticides and other chemicals that can change from day to day, depending on
the
amount and nature of the runoff entering the river system.
Chemical cocktail
After the US Clean Water Act and similar legislation in Canada forced
drastic
cuts in easily tracked water pollutants, such "nonpoint sources" of
pollution -
those affecting a water body from diffuse sources - have become more common.
To get a better handle on how dilute pesticides stymie a fish's sense of
smell,
Tierney, now at University of Windsor, Ontario, and his colleague
Christopher
Kennedy measured the water quality in British Columbia's Nicomekl River - a
34-kilometre flow that empties into the Pacific Ocean just south of
Vancouver.
Tierney's team found no fewer than 40 chemicals in the river, most at trace
concentrations.
Simplifying matters, the researchers created a weak mix of the 10 most
abundant
pesticides, which included atrazine and diazinon, then exposed trout to the
brew
for four days. Next, they tested how the chemicals affected odour-sensing
cells
exposed to a scent molecule produced by predators.
Permanent damage
Pesticide-treated trout could still sense the odour - an amino acid called
L-serine - but they couldn't detect changes in the scent's concentration,
the
researchers found. Sensing changes in the levels of a scent is important
because
animals, including humans, tend to "tune out" smells that don't change,
Tierney
says.
"If you go into a pizza joint, you get used to the smell," he says. "You go
back
outside and it smells completely different."
The damage also seems permanent - a protein that detoxifies harmful
chemicals
appears overwhelmed by the pesticides. "This [contaminated] water is causing
problems in very, very sensitive tissue," he says.
In unpublished experiments, Tierney's team has found that trout exposed to
low
levels of pesticides have trouble finding food and mates. All told, the
deadened
sense of smell may mean that fewer salmon survive to spawn each year.
Cleaner water
Pesticides are probably just a part of the problem facing salmon, says
Nathaniel
Scholz, an ecotoxicologist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration in Seattle, Washington. Overfishing and climate change have
also
been blamed for declines.
Untangling the role of water pollutants will help conservationists and
policy
makers "get the most bang for their buck," Scholz says.
And even if field research proves that low levels of pesticides contribute
to
declining stocks, stemming the trickle of chemicals into rivers won't be
easy.
The toxic compounds come from a myriad of sources, including farms, cities
and
suburbs, and their levels often fluctuate from day to day, depending on
storm
runoff.
Yet safer pesticides and better runoff controls offer some hope, Tierney
says.
"The water will have to be a little cleaner if we want to have salmon in the
water."