North England temperature data disproves global warming [modified]
-
fat_boy wrote:
it looks flat for the whole century to me.
It seems to me it is getting hotter since the 70s [^]
Did you run the data through a graph generator? If so, as you can see there isnt any appreciable change at all foor the whole century. And dont forget, CO2 has gone through the roof since then. Are you finally convibnced Karl that rising CO2 doe not caus rising temperature? And that in fact, we might not actually have much of a rising temoperature anyway? Given the UHI effect, and the recent NASA adjusted data, we cant even be sure there IS global warming.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
I'm sure there's a hockey stick in there somewhere...:rolleyes:
-
Did you run the data through a graph generator? If so, as you can see there isnt any appreciable change at all foor the whole century. And dont forget, CO2 has gone through the roof since then. Are you finally convibnced Karl that rising CO2 doe not caus rising temperature? And that in fact, we might not actually have much of a rising temoperature anyway? Given the UHI effect, and the recent NASA adjusted data, we cant even be sure there IS global warming.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Did you run the data through a graph generator?
Excel.
fat_boy wrote:
as you can see there isnt any appreciable change at all foor the whole century.
I disagree.
fat_boy wrote:
Are you finally convibnced Karl that rising CO2 doe not caus rising temperature?
No.
fat_boy wrote:
And that in fact, we might not actually have much of a rising temoperature anyway?
No.
-
fat_boy wrote:
it looks flat for the whole century to me.
It seems to me it is getting hotter since the 70s [^]
It does rather.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Did you run the data through a graph generator?
Excel.
fat_boy wrote:
as you can see there isnt any appreciable change at all foor the whole century.
I disagree.
fat_boy wrote:
Are you finally convibnced Karl that rising CO2 doe not caus rising temperature?
No.
fat_boy wrote:
And that in fact, we might not actually have much of a rising temoperature anyway?
No.
Karl, its flat from 1900 to 1006! There are some spikes since the 70s, but the 30's to 40's look consistently warmer on average. But, if there is a trend, it is so slight, and NO WAY near the 0.6 degree C increase supposed by the most moderat of AGWers. You know, if you cant accept this, and the US data (and tell me, just how much reliable data IS there for the whole century) then you really are just being intentionally blind. Thats very unscientific of you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
A graph with no scale or key, isn't.
-
Karl, its flat from 1900 to 1006! There are some spikes since the 70s, but the 30's to 40's look consistently warmer on average. But, if there is a trend, it is so slight, and NO WAY near the 0.6 degree C increase supposed by the most moderat of AGWers. You know, if you cant accept this, and the US data (and tell me, just how much reliable data IS there for the whole century) then you really are just being intentionally blind. Thats very unscientific of you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
fat_boy wrote:
he 0.6 degree C increase
Do you believe this increase would be uniform through the whole planet?
-
Karl, its flat from 1900 to 1006! There are some spikes since the 70s, but the 30's to 40's look consistently warmer on average. But, if there is a trend, it is so slight, and NO WAY near the 0.6 degree C increase supposed by the most moderat of AGWers. You know, if you cant accept this, and the US data (and tell me, just how much reliable data IS there for the whole century) then you really are just being intentionally blind. Thats very unscientific of you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
You should know better than to get into a religious argument.
-
You have a great imagination. Four points do not make a trend in a graph with that much noise...
-
fat_boy wrote:
it looks flat for the whole century to me.
It seems to me it is getting hotter since the 70s [^]
-
Tell you what Karl, plot the rainfall and sunshine figures too. Lets see if the weather is worse, or better and whether there is less cloud cover.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
I do. the data (converted to monthly average temp (tmax+tmin)/2 )has a very small (0.001 deg/month) positive slope - the newer data is slightly higher (1.4 deg C) than the oldest, but the correlation coefficient (R^2) for the trend line is only 0.0079, which would mean that the data is too noisy to draw any meaningful conclusion(the regression slope accounts for only 0.79% of the variation...)
-
Not as well as you do...
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Let's talk about a price then :-D
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
I've just spent half an hour messing around and cant get a decent graph. How do you do it?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Year and month when the temperature exceeded 21 degrees Celcius: 1899 7 21.2 1900 7 22.5 1901 7 22.6 1904 7 21.3 1905 7 21.8 1906 8 21.3 1911 7 23.4 1911 8 23.0 1921 7 23.8 1925 7 21.8 1933 7 23.0 1933 8 22.7 1934 7 23.8 1935 7 22.2 1935 8 22.4 1937 8 21.3 1940 6 22.4 1941 7 22.4 1943 7 21.0 1947 8 23.9 1949 7 21.6 1949 8 21.1 1950 6 21.1 1955 7 22.9 1955 8 22.0 1959 7 22.2 1959 8 22.4 1960 6 21.7 1967 7 21.5 1969 7 21.5 1971 7 22.1 1975 7 21.7 1975 8 24.6 1976 6 22.3 1976 7 24.0 1976 8 23.0 1983 7 24.5 1983 8 22.1 1984 7 22.4 1984 8 22.5 1989 7 22.9 1989 8 21.1 1990 7 22.1 1990 8 23.1 1991 7 22.2 1991 8 21.9 1994 7 23.3 1995 7 23.8 1995 8 24.4 1996 7 21.5 1996 8 21.5 1997 7 21.7 1997 8 23.3 1999 7 22.5 2000 8 21.2 2001 7 21.4 2002 8 21.2 2003 6 21.0 2003 7 21.9 2003 8 22.4 2004 8 21.3 2006 6 21.6 2006 7 25.6 [^] Anyone spot a trend? I sure as fuck cant; it looks flat for the whole century to me. And remember AGW freaks, this is real, no bullshit data for the UK Met Office for a weather station in Sheffield. One of the only ones in thecountry with sdata for the whole century. This is FACT, REAL DATA, ,not hyperbole, not computer models, not spin. -- modified at 11:07 Thursday 23rd August, 2007 And thanks to Karl, we have a graph form: http://diderot.free.fr/images/temp.gif[^] Karl hasnt turned from the dark side though, he is just sure he can see a trend.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Yeah, but that's the north of England it's been permanently shit there since the dawn of time. :-D
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aureliusi liked the north of england when i went they're really friendly and the girls are lovely ;) well to us kiwis anyway Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
I dont even know why I bother replying to such an intentionally stupid post. You know the premis of my 'model' (such as it is by your deffinition) was that the IPCC state there is an extra 1.6 W/m^2 going into the earth. My calculations clearly disprove that. Its impossible. Unless that value isnt really 'extra' but is actually reduced by black body radiation into space. In wich case, why publish the figure?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
