"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?

"Roger Coppock"  wrote in message
news:1191974428.367876.248210@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 9, 4:41 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
>  wrote:
> > "HangEveryRepubliKKKan" 
wrote
> >
> > >> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>
> It takes a true pathological liar to
> repeat the lie that the global climate
> has cooled since 1998.  The coward
> hiding behind the name "Bonzo" qualifies.
> Just 9 points tell the truth.
>
>
> 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
>

Here is a plot ...

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
******************************************************

Nope, no discernible trend here!

Maybe a slight cooling trend.
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"Public broadcasters' coverage of the global warming issue
indicates their staff do not understand the difference between
sound empirical science and the virtual realities of speculative
computer modelling." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology,
James Cook University, Townsville

"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?