North England temperature data disproves global warming [modified]
-
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
-
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).
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
