North England temperature data disproves global warming [modified]

[KaRl]

fat_boy wrote:

he 0.6 degree C increase

Do you believe this increase would be uniform through the whole planet?

[Lost User]

K(arl) wrote:

Do you believe this increase would be uniform through the whole planet?

Yes. Thats why its called Global Warming! ;)

Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception

[Rob Graham]

You should know better than to get into a religious argument.

[KaRl]

Rob Graham wrote:

You have a great imagination

Yeah, that's one of my numerous strengths :-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?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

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

[KaRl]

Don't you know how to use excel? ;-P

[Lost User]

Not as well as you do...

Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception

[Rob Graham]

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...)

[KaRl]

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?

Fold with us! ¤ flickr

[Lost User]

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

[KaRl]

I create a column for the X axis, calculated as (year + (month - 1) / 12). Next I create a graph of type 'points cloud' (? "nuages de points" in french, the fifth type in excel 2k).

[cp9876]

It certainly seems to be at odds with your model[^] of global warming which predicts that temperatures rise at 16 degrees per year.

---

Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."

[bryce]

i 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/publitor

Our kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff

[Lost User]

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

[Lost User]

K(arl) wrote:

I create a column for the X axis, calculated as (year + (month - 1) / 12).

Whats the generic formula for that? ie, can the formulka automatically choose the data from column A for that row?

Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception