NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
Roger Coppock
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
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 130 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 last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed at
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean November temperature over the last 130 years is 13.983 C.
The Variance is 0.07078.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2660.
Rxy 0.7867 Rxy^2 0.6189
TEMP = 13.618007 + (0.005577 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 207.847186
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of November in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
yet it was 14.68. <- 1.3 SIGMA above the projection.
The rate of global warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.455847
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.621659 * e^(.0003994 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.409998
(Note that this sum continues to get smaller
that the sum above it. This
indicates that the
two degree of freedom exponential is becoming
a better fit than the linear function.)
Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.68 0.697 2.62 <--
2001 14.66 0.677 2.54
2004 14.65 0.667 2.51
2006 14.64 0.657 2.47
2005 14.63 0.647 2.43
2008 14.57 0.587 2.21
1997 14.55 0.567 2.13
2002 14.50 0.517 1.94
2003 14.49 0.507 1.90
2007 14.46 0.477 1.79
1998 14.43 0.447 1.68
1990 14.42 0.437 1.64
1995 14.37 0.387 1.45
1996 14.34 0.357 1.34
MEAN 13.983 0.000 0.00
1881 13.66 -0.323 -1.22
1912 13.65 -0.333 -1.25
1906 13.64 -0.343 -1.29
1898 13.62 -0.363 -1.37
1894 13.62 -0.363 -1.37
1887 13.62 -0.363 -1.37
1916 13.60 -0.383 -1.44
1891 13.60 -0.383 -1.44
1910 13.59 -0.393 -1.48
1892 13.59 -0.393 -1.48
1908 13.58 -0.403 -1.52
1902 13.58 -0.403 -1.52
1907 13.57 -0.413 -1.55
1919 13.53 -0.453 -1.70
1890 13.49 -0.493 -1.85
The most recent 189 continuous months, or 15 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1559 months of data on this data set:
-- 673 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 886 of them are below the norm.
This run of 189 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
> NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
>
> They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
> over the last 130 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.
>
Cooked temperatures
Read the emails
Roger Dewhurst
> NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
>
All data touched by the UK Met Office and the CRU must be considered
contaminated and unreliable. See below:
By James Delingpole Politics
December 18th, 2009
Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a
British Climate research business?
Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG,
and developed and installed new CO2 removal
technology in their process; this lowers the carbon
footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive
electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is
taxed. They have no problem with this whole thing.
Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in
a different position, they have a problem with this
whole thing.
Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in
the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change
it from really hot to really hot.
Maybe it is just good business.
Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office:
Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur
(approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal
Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%,
KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui
2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up
in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described
in the book: �The history of the University of East
Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)� By Michael Sanderson.
The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP,
the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex
LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global
Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings
receives funding from �Big Oil� and the nuclear power
industry.
Secondly, the research from the institution which is
perceived to be independent publicly funded research,
is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a
business.
The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page
from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
So, there a business set up in the early 1970�s, so what?
I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got
to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to
me it looks like this may have been a very, very long
term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental,
but it does seem to fit the observable information.
A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to
a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said �Why
would they do it?� I indicated the Jones had received
22 million, etc, but he countered, �For a fraud this
large, going on for this long, there would have to be
billions of dollars to be made, not millions�. That
made sense.
So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing,
it covers two or three decades, involves many countries
and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone
has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar
number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it
not political in the partisan sense of the word.
If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that
the objectives were:
1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in
power generation and transportation, so as to
avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base
load electrical power generation would not
consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.
Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS
WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are
already starting to put the �Peak Oil� story into play. It
is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719
Then the following is not unbelievable.
The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was
moving along well back then, and in fact today their
scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except
CO2. However there is really not much money in coal,
it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to
the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired
power plant is not much more complicated, or
expensive, than a good steam engine.
Since there was not enough money in coal it would not
be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal
as a replacement for oil.
So they looked at the situation and realized that the
difference between the different technologies to
replace base load power generation was the amount
of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
At that point CO2 became the target. That happened
sometime between 1985 and 1988.
Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly
of followers, you can look up �dihydrogen monoxide�
(water), on many occasions at environmental
conferences comedians and light news organizations
have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a
petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently
they do not do a lot of independent analysis before
making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.
So if you need a large number of followers, there is a
ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to
tell the followers what to think. The followers do not
need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason
or the facts; they just need something or someone to
follow.
Now you gain control of a climate research business,
and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize
that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of
dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage
to get control of the worlds climate data and begin
adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the
marketing people to present the information needed in
as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the
two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this
case, because of the number of followers greed will not
work. There are simply too many followers to pay them
all off.
So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-
science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately
drive the followers to do something that would just not
have been possible after Three Mile Island.
They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in
support of nuclear power. They do not know this of
course, but that is what the plan on the table says.
Check it out, look at exactly what are the big
technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give
you a hint, it is not windmills.
They are also marching in Copenhagen against big
business, while supporting one of the biggest
businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange
that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank
control the trillions being put on the table? So they are
marching against exactly what they are supporting,
they are simply followers.
Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible
objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find
ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots
and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many
are involved in delivery, support, financing and
maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and
the generation of nuclear power.
I do not think this was ever about the environment.
There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like
GE buying and now selling a TV network, they needed
then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps
but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power
generation. Look around, there are others.
That said; I do believe that the world does need to move
to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I
do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to
stability.
So I agree with the objectives and encourage the
outcome, I just do not like them messing with the
science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the
masses to agree to it all.
Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the
same way; the means were wrong regardless of the
merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in
the hope that someone could figure out what they could
not just come out and say publicly.
This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be
involved. All that was need was for one or two people in
perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data.
Anyone using the data when making a comparison to
CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into
the data. The scientists would not be aware that they
were being played. They would honestly think that their
conclusions were correct. Only none of their
predictions would ever be confirmed.
All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that
used those papers for support, would therefore be
invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect
that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake.
The mistake was encoded into the base data before they
even started
Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw
data and making the �adjustments� needed to know of
the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to
seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist
begins to say things like �the data must be wrong�, or
�our monitoring is deficient�, perhaps they might not
have been in on the �adjustments� and they are likely
frustrated because their model �works� for the past
and recent past. Think �We can�t explain the lack of
warming�, perhaps the author of that email could not,
but perhaps someone else could.
It would only have taken a dozen people in just the
right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.
So who might have put these people in just the right
place all those years ago, and why?
Green Turtle
news:f74c33fb-5c6c-4c4c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
>
>
Above link is from 2008...what gives?
Oh..right ..this is another hide the decline trick by trying to using older
numbers!!!
Super Turtle
OldBoy
news:f74c33fb-5c6c-4c4c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
NASA is founded in?
Peter Franks
So what?
JohnM
wrote:
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
Quote:
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You've spent too much time on your knees in front of Jebus. I don't
care to imagine what you were doing there.
Last Post
> NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR RECORD!
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
>
> These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> There are 1559 months of data on this data set:
> -- 673 of them are at or above the norm.
> -- 886 of them are below the norm.
• Roger is straining at gnats and it makes him silly.
Assuming half of the 673 were 'at norm', that leaves
only 337 above norm while 886 were below, which
gives you 21.55% above. Not much of a warming
trend at all.
• Roger, you can fool some of the people sometimes
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
• The Met office is the original home of weather and
this year it forecast picnic weather all summer and
it was cold and rainy all summer. Nevertheless it
and GISS called every month the hottest/warmest.
Your statistical bullshit is too old and your cause is
failing. Give it up. While Jones, Briffa and Mann
coined million$, what are you getting? Headaches!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
edi...@netpath.net
central North Carolina - where it rarely snows.
Record snowstorm, fortunately, forecast for Washington - up to 20".
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Last Post
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
>
> They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
> taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
> over the last 130 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.
• Roger: Did you get allowance for those hundreds of
Russian stations that do not exist any more??
They will take your mean down several degrees <G>
> The last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
>
> The Mean November temperature over the last 130 years is 13.983 C.
> The Variance is 0.07078.
> The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2660.
>
> Rxy 0.7867 Rxy^2 0.6189
> TEMP = 13.618007 + (0.005577 * (YEAR-1879))
> Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 207.847186
> Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
> 0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
Bullshit!!!!
> The month of November in the year 2009,
> is linearly projected to be 14.343,
> yet it was 14.68. <- 1.3 SIGMA above the projection.
> The rate of global warming continues to accelerate.
• Bullshit
Bedwetting Right Wing Scum
Meanwhile, where I live, we had the warmest November in 120 years, and
we are about to get the latest first snowfall in nearly 80 years.
Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to this debate.
mrbawana2u
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/
You can't be serious.
> [delusional garbage flushed]
Barack Obama just couldn’t catch a break in Copenhagen, or so it
seems.
On the heels of his mind-boggling humiliation at the hands of the IOC
just weeks ago, our naive community organizer suffered another brutal
day on the international stage while trying to convert hot air into
green gold.
Never at a loss for words when it comes to exaggerating his own
importance
and accomplishments, Obama shoved the naked truth into submission and
declared Victory
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18088
=======================================
There is no joy in "Dopenhagen."
President Obama hustled himself back onto Air Force One
after a brief, embarrassing, unsophisticated, unsatisfying,
and insignificant appearance at the United Nations Climate
Conference,
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/flameout_in_copenhagen.html
=============================================================
Obama, the laughingstock
Is our President, and America itself, becoming laughingstock of
the world to be ignored and dismissed, if not ridiculed,
as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have?
The world has taken measure of the man and he has fallen short.
Chavez calls Obama "the devil" and that,
using his favorite way to describe the odor
of American President, he smells of sulfur.
Even Fidel Castro mocks him .
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/obama_the_laughingstock.html
===============================================================
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich, which is known as
Marxist "Distribution of Income."
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's
initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could
and should do for themselves." -- Abraham Lincoln.
http://www.etherzone.com/2009/bish121409.shtml
======================================================
I M @ good guy
November was warm here, thank God, October
was really cold and December looks to be way below
average.
None of the climate offices will be able to
convince Washington, D.C. people that warming
is taking place, it may take six months to melt
all the snow.
Roger Dewhurst
> NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
Look for 'Piltdown' Mann's recommendation to construct synthetic data bases.
You are basing your rant, as always, on manipulated data, synthetic data
with bias, data manipulated to prove global warming.
on bo
Climate Data Tampering In Australia Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Darwin Detected
Climate Data Tampering In New Zealand Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Russia Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Alaska Detected
Climate Data Tampering In Sweden Detected
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/making_sweden_warmer/
Fraudulent Hockey Sticks And Hidden Data
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660
Would You Buy A Used Car From These So-Called "Scientists"?
Our gullible alarmist friends have obviously fallen for this scam hook,
line, and sinker!
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead auther Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of this
change.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't .there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to get rid of the Medi�val Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider
"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Roger Coppock
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> > In the real world,
> > outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> > global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> > Please see:
>
> >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
>
> All data touched by the UK Met Office and the CRU must be considered
> contaminated and unreliable. See below:
That's a sweeping statement if there ever was one
BUT . . . These data come from NASA not the CRU/
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f74c33fb-5c6c-4c4c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> NASA is founded in?
1776.
bb
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of
averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the
1961-1990 period. NASA uses 1951-1980. because of this the temps are
artificially inflated
Roger Coppock
On Dec 22, 9:36 am, "bb" <b...@new.rr.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of
> averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the
> 1961-1990 period. NASA uses 1951-1980. because of this the temps are
> artificially inflated
Nope! 1951-1980 are used for the sake of computational
convenience. The mean of those years happens to be
very close to 14.00 C. NASA did not choose those years.
Furthermore, the choice of baseline does not affect the trend.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
• Coppock— It is time you stopped spamming the net
repeating those fraudulent statistics over and over in
every thread. Anybody that wants them can follow a
link.
There are 3 groups that I would recommend for you
soc.history.what-if
alt.history.what-if
alt.usenet.kooks
Graystar
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
>> Is any simple fact that a fossil fool can't get totally wrong?
>>
>> On Dec 22, 9:36 am, "bb" <b...@new.rr.com> wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>> > The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of
>> > averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering
>> > the
>> > 1961-1990 period. NASA uses 1951-1980. because of this the temps are
>> > artificially inflated
>>
>> Nope! 1951-1980 are used for the sake of computational
>> convenience. The mean of those years happens to be
>> very close to 14.00 C.
>
>
>> Furthermore, the choice of baseline does not affect the trend.
>
Where the data comes from: a summary
Just loook at who is connected to who... and the flaws.
Video: http://www.pjtv.com/v/2889
http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> Video:http://www.pjtv.com/v/2889
All I get is a 404 file not found error.
Roger Coppock
> >news:f74c33fb-5c6c-4c4c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > > NOVEMBER, 2009, IS THE WARMEST ON THE 130-YEAR NASA RECORD!
>
> > NASA is founded in?
>
>
> 130-year... LOL
Gee, I know that the USA was founded in 1776.
. . . and I wasn't even born then.
NASA/NOAA data goes back to 1880.
That's before NASA was born.
Both NASA and I can read historical data.
Can you read, history, or anything else?
Graystar
Graystar
> I wonder what good video quality they have... my respect!
>
> It's about the same thing like the hockeystick demo by WUWT:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE
It's like it started in the middle of something...
but eventually saw where he was going after a bit.
Not as well produced, but still makes the point.
> My graph shows 12000 years and you see the purple 30-year period, those
> AGW
> nutcases use for calculating a future trend.
Yeah. Like predicting future temperatures off of a Springtime warming
trend.
Anyone worthy of the name of "scientist" knows the data set used for AGW is
pure BS.
> Mind the whole ridicule of using only 30 years, or fair enough
> cherrypicked
> 130 years, compared to 12000 or a few million years, to claim an
> inshakeable
> global disaster from that!
Ha! LOL!
> Let's take 1 millimeter for each year since 600 million years and build a
> winding road of 600 km length of it.
> Those AGW nutcases dare to decide the future direction of the road from
> only 3 cm at the end of the road, taking into account the last 13 cm!
>
> What a big laugh!
Totally. Well said Peter
> --
> WARNING: IPCC ARs are crammed with loads of deliberate misinformation
> and fraud, designed for the sole purpose of helping AGWs darwinate in
> spectacular ways for the amusement of those more intelligent.
Yeah. I just loved those comment lines embedded in the model code that say
"Fudge Factor" and "another example of my bad programming" and fixed point
data sets cherry picked and plopped into key points.
If I had done this in my Marine Geology classes or Oceanography classes or
even Weather classes... they would have kicked my ass out right into the
Peconic Bay... and I would have deserved it.
This comment on the YouTube site was pretty funny:
*************************
jerbiebarb (1 hour ago) Show Hide
Reply
You deniers are so silly when we know that AGW will be obvious to everyone
within a very few years.
Do you guys think your posts will be erased? LoL
*************************
uh huh... and your evidence for this is exactly... where? and where is the
reproduceability of this "prediction"?
Jerbiebarb... ya ain't got nothin' but a Blowhard Constipated
ex-vicePresident pumped up by someone who thinks she can "create" Alpha
Males by taking drugged out Jackasses, sticking hoses up their backsides and
blowing them up to sizes just large enough to be DonkeyZilla...
annoying...
A Side point about The MOVIES to illustrate similar biases out there:
I saw Avatar yesterday...
OK after seeing how bad the stereotypes are in that movie about the military
and corporations...
seems to me that only One World Governments putting pressure on GSEs owned
by Libs could have clustered that any worse.
So to me it indicted New World Order Governments more than anything else
because the Gov blockheads acted as the puppetmasters...
Ya don't see individuals or companys doing much of that crap in classic
Sci-fi because they are more interested in the unknowns out there.
Ya don't find new stuff out by playing Bull in a China shop. Idiots. They
think we are all fools, and that we will swallow that ALL corporations, even
big ones are ALL bad. That's a stereotype based on feeeeeeeelings... IOW
pure Nancy Pelosi...or Barbara Streisand <depending on your preferences>
IMO, the Earth government attempted to cluster Pandora for what was LIKELY a
bio excreted element <given the tech specs they displayed>..
so those idiots were really killing the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs
<unobtainium in this case>...
otherwise they would have found deposits on other planetary bodies &
asteriods in that system.
Pretty bad writing IMO.
But... there is always room for a sequel. Maybe someone real will help Mr.
Cameron pull his stereotypical head out of that dark place, because he B
dancin' shoulder to shoulder wid da Deboh...
Merry Christmas Y'all.
=];o)