On Apr 8, 1:46=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > I see that you have dishonestly altered the plot yet again.
>
> "Addinall" <addin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> > It's your data you dip****.
>
> =A0 But it's not my plot. =A0You dishonestly altered it - again.
>
> Here is the original.
>
> Here are the figures for the last decade.
>
> 1998 14.57 **************************
> 1999 14.33 *****************
> 2000 14.33 *****************
> 2001 14.48 ************************
> 2002 14.56 ***************************
> 2003 14.55 ***************************
> 2004 14.49 *************************
> 2005 14.63 *******************************
> 2006 14.54 ***************************
> 2007 14.57 *****************************
>
> > > Just a warming of roughly 2'C per century...
Then one would expect that the temperature difference
"globally" between the decade of your data set, to have
a positive delta of 0.2C.
The data you present does not show this.
The "global" temperature you present in
1998 is EXACTLY the same as that in 2007.
When it SHOULD be, according to your inane theory,
14.77C. What happened?
You just bumped into a straight line my boy!
>
> "Addinall" <addin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> > Crap.
>
> =A0You are free to perform your own linerar regression.
>
> =A0 You haven't because you aren't smart enough, and know the answer
will =
be
> the same as mine.
I think I can handle a table that has 10X2 data elements.
Flat line. You are just wrong, and the little wheels of this AGM
scare are thankfully falling off.
>
> =A0 MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
>
> > In reality over a sufficiently chosen time frame, everything in nature
> > follows a linear relation****p.
>
> "Addinall" <addin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> > It does not. =A0Not in any sense. =A0Over a chosen t-series one can
make=
> > a simplistic regression model to 'prove' anything you wish. =A0Doesn't
> > make it real however.
>
> =A0 Well, linearity over small intervals is the fundamental assumption
of
> Integral Calculus.
It is not. One of the assumptions of integral calculus is the the
normality of the data presented will be a gaussian fit, and that
the mean of the sum of squares be measured from that assumption.
>
> =A0 =A0Are you now going to claim that Newton was in on this global
warmin=
g
> Conspiracy of yours.
One of the greatest scientists to have ever lived. I'm sure
he would not fall for this utter wankfest.
>
> =A0 =A0MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
>
> > I don't think your KKKonservative Liedeology has managed to disproved
> > Calculus.
>
> "Addinall" <addin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> > The Calculus is not involved in this analysis.
>
> =A0 Actually it is. =A0It was used to provide the mininum of the least
squ=
ares
> sum.
Actually it is not.
>
> =A0 And it's fundamental assumption of linearity over delta t t->0
illustr=
ates
> your profound ignorance.
>
> =A0 MMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
>
> > It shows a increase of approximately 2'C per century. (Standard
Linerar
> > Regresssion)
>
> "Addinall" <addin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
> > Nope. =A0Just plain wrong.
>
> =A0 Prove it. =A0Reproduce your calculations here.
You have done it for me by presenting empirical data
that disputes your theory. I have no work to do.
Mark Addinall.
>
> =A0 MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
|
