Here is a plot of the DATA  (Not some "fit") ...

Looks like a horizontal line to me!

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


Regards

Bonzo

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
climate change to man-made causes"

Hi!  I'm Roger Coppock, and some coward who hides
behind the Internet name "Bonzo" copied his data
from the post of mine below.  As you can see global
mean surface temperatures have not flat-lined since
1998.  Quite the opposite, these data show warming.
Here on the alt.global-warming newsgroup, we've
come to expect crude lies like this from Bonzo.

Thank You.

=-=-=-=-=-=

I am 83% sure that the global mean land and sea surface
temperature increased at 0.02K per year over the years
1998 to 2006.  (83% confidence from only 9 points is the
indication of just how strong the warming trend has become!)

TEMP = 13.765 + (0.01899 * (YEAR-1997))
Degrees of Freedom = 7         F = 2.386
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.83

This result, a current warming rate of 2K per century,
is entirely consistent with longer term trends which
show a steady increase in this rate of temperature rise
for more than the last 50 years.  Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2006.jpg

The data are available in the column labeled "AnnMean"
and "J-D" at this URL:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Year  AnnMean
1998  14.57
1999  14.33
2000  14.33
2001  14.48
2002  14.56
2003  14.55
2004  14.49
2005  14.62
2006  14.54
=-=-=-=-=-=

Dear "Bonzo":

Will you and all your sockpupets please stop
interrupting threads by retelling the very
obvious lie about decreasing temperatures
over the last 8 years?

THANK YOU.


On Oct 7, 9:55 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> Here is a plot of the DATA  (Not some "fit") ...
>
> Looks like a horizontal line to me!
>
> 1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were
> deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
> 1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that
> we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in
> greenhouse gases."
> 2. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the
> climate change to man-made causes"

"Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
news:1191821197.038086.195110@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi!  I'm Roger Coppock, and some coward who hides
> behind the Internet name "Bonzo" copied his data
> from the post of mine below.  As you can see global
> mean surface temperatures have not flat-lined since
> 1998.

Sorry Popcock but this looks like flat line to me, before
"massaging" that is .....

1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII



We're talking here, of changes, year to year, of small fractions
of a degree!



If that's not flatlining then nothing is.





Regards

Bonzo

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and
Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact,
when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now,
about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the
absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. . On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the
recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major
cause of the past century's modest warming?" Professor Tim
Patterson, aleoclimatologist, Carleton University, Appearing
before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development

Dear coward who hides behind the name "Bonzo":

Your local junior college or adult education center
may have an introductory course in statistics.
There, if you pay attention, you could learn about
regression, the technique scientists use to find trends.

Very insincerely yours,

Roger Coppock


On Oct 7, 10:32 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> "Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
>
> news:1191821197.038086.195110@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi!  I'm Roger Coppock, and some coward who hides
> > behind the Internet name "Bonzo" copied his data
> > from the post of mine below.  As you can see global
> > mean surface temperatures have not flat-lined since
> > 1998.
>
> Sorry Popcock but this looks like flat line to me, before
> "massaging" that is .....
>
> 1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> 2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
>
> We're talking here, of changes, year to year, of small fractions
> of a degree!
>
> If that's not flatlining then nothing is.
>

"Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
news:1191822604.030868.55390@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Dear coward who hides behind the name "Bonzo":
> Your local junior college or adult education center
> may have an introductory course in statistics.

Sorry but I do not subscribe to phoney statistics which create
imaginary trends.

The temperature data graph below is as horizontal as you can
practically achieve and no amount of statistical "massaging" will
convinec me or any other rational person that a trend exists!

Temperatures have plateaued since 1998 and that is a fact borne
out by the graph.

So back to your unconvincing lies and distortions Popcock, I need
another good laugh



Regards

Bonzo

"Kyoto was about hobbling America's economy, to give socialist
Europe a fighting chance". Margaret Wallstrom, EU Vice President
of EU Communications



> On Oct 7, 10:32 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
> > "Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
> >
> > news:1191821197.038086.195110@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Hi!  I'm Roger Coppock, and some coward who hides
> > > behind the Internet name "Bonzo" copied his data
> > > from the post of mine below.  As you can see global
> > > mean surface temperatures have not flat-lined since
> > > 1998.
> >
> > Sorry Popcock but this looks like flat line to me, before
> > "massaging" that is .....
> >
> > 1998 14.57    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 1999 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2000 14.33    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2001 14.48    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2002 14.56    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2003 14.55    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2004 14.49    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2005 14.63    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> > 2006 14.54    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
> >
> > We're talking here, of changes, year to year, of small
fractions
> > of a degree!
> >
> > If that's not flatlining then nothing is.
> >
>

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 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
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "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 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

On Oct 8, 7:16 am, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
 wrote:
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>
> >> 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
>
> >>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>
> > The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> > They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> > Voodoo statistics!
>
>   Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
> across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
> below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
> nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
> be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
> the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.
>
>   You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
> general aren't you Bonzo.
>
>   Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
> how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
> to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.
>
>   "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
> school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
>
>   Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>
> > Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> > 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> > 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> > 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> > 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> > 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> > 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> > 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> > 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> > 2006 381.90 NA            14.54
>
>   No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
> best linear fit to the data shown as "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 14.63  *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

But the trend is NOT caused by CO2 but other natural
causes.There is no such thing as a GHG.
No one has done an experiment that actually demonstrated
the mechanism.
My tests have shown that although moderate concentrations
CO2 warm faster than air,  the same moderate concentrations of CH4
 warm more slowly than air. This would not happen if
the GHG mechanism was a reality.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 04:34:02 -0700, chemist wrote:

<snip>
> 
> But the trend is NOT caused by CO2 but other natural causes.There is no
> such thing as a GHG. No one has done an experiment that actually
> demonstrated the mechanism.
> My tests have shown that although moderate concentrations CO2 warm faster
> than air,  the same moderate concentrations of CH4
>  warm more slowly than air. This would not happen if
> the GHG mechanism was a reality.

I think what you are seeing is a heat capacity effect.  That hasn't got
much to do with the "greenhouse effect" other than to disprove the bogus
demonstrations used to scare kids into believing in it.

On Oct 8, 11:42 am, Bill Ward  wrote:"I
think what you are seeing is a heat capacity effect.  That hasn't got
much to do with the "greenhouse effect""..

Really, how interesting, care to explain yourself...

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>>   No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with 
>> the
>> best linear fit to the data shown as "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 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>>
>> So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?


"chemist"  wrote
> But the trend is NOT caused by CO2 but other natural
> causes.There is no such thing as a GHG.

  Two weeks ago you were insisting that the above graphic showed that the 
earth had been cooling since 1998.

  You are a congenital liar.


"chemist"  wrote
> No one has done an experiment that actually demonstrated
> the mechanism.

  Again, you are a congenital liar.  The absorption of Infared Radiation by 
the atmosphere is of keen interest to Ground based Infared Astronomy, and 
the entire spectral characteristics of the atmosphere in the infared had eo 
be painstakingly mapped out and measured in order for there to be any ground 
infared astronomy conducted at all.


"chemist"  wrote
> My tests have shown that although moderate concentrations
> CO2 warm faster than air

 Your pop bottle tests?  Ahahahahah.. The ones where you misestimate the 
optical density of CO2, you don't control for thermal losses, you don't 
illuminate each bottle differently, you fail to even measure the absorptive 
properties of the bottles, ahahaha you don't even specify what type of 
bottles you used, or even project based on any calculation what temperature 
change you should expect to see?

  Ahahahahahahahahah....

  You ain't no chemist.  Shit Stick.  You wouldn't even compete in a grade 
school science fair.