Look at the p-value
"MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN" - it says that
the slope could well be zero. R^2 can be interpreted once you have
established that your model works. Look it up somewhere ... look out for
p-value which seems to be a totally unknown concept to you.

and by the way - I never said the Earth is cooling - I only say you are
completely ignorant

Do you mean that Algore should fly to a few more places far and
wide and burn a few more hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel?

Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Ad hominem attack. Yawn.

Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of
which
are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
finite thickness.

Careful, you but betray your ignorance.

To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
validity of the Eddington approximation.

The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.

The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
incorrect.

The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
about 8%.

And the p value doesn't say that the slope could be zero. Doofus.
Oh, doesn't it? What does it say then? What is the H0 hypothesis for
regression? Please answer and cite your source.

Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
is
positive, and negative.

Here you are:
the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
(0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296, 0.03762496)
thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's all we know.

MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

disclaimer:
the linear model is obviously bullshit here, but M-for-Moron's asterisk-
and-o's approach is simply hilarious - linear model just puts it in
prespective

On May 7, 9:13 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:





On May 7, 11:34 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On May 7, 8:13 pm, Cato <caton... at (no spam) sympatico.ca> wrote:

On May 7, 2:43 am, "V-for-Vendicar"

Just... at (no spam) ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

  Tom needs to change the subject and fast.

  The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.

  That claim is a lie.

Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.

=
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
2007 14.57  *****************************

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

hmmm... what do I see here....  ???  1998   14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005)  and one that
is equal  (2007)
   Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.

Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous.

It's unfortunate that "the people who really matter" are unable to
provide us a reference to their imagination.

Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.

   Terrifying  !!!   We are all going to melt.  lol    Launch the
lifeboats  the ship is sinking...
   "The sky is falling... the sky is falling"  - Chicken Little

Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall?

Yet not a single one of them can explicate the premise that CO2 can
cause atmospheric warming--not one!

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

"Tom M" <tmil... at (no spam) umaryland.edu> wrote

From the church of GW where AG preaches.

  Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming..
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair."

"Whata Fool" <whata at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote
Do you mean that Algore should fly to a few more places far and
wide and burn a few more hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel?

At least that much. Gore has been extremely successful in bringing
attention to the Global Warming Crisis that is unfolding.

The cost of the fuel consumed is greatly outweighted by the benefits it
has purchased.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN

Its arrogance to think

Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

Ad hominem attack. Yawn.

A classification.

Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of
which
are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
finite thickness.

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

Careful, you but betray your ignorance.

Please tell us. Which dimension of the earth's atmosphere is
semi-infinite?

Ahahahahahahahaha

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
validity of the Eddington approximation.

The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.

The Edington approximation comes from an era where numerical integration was
so labor intensive and impractical to be impossible.

Modern desktop computers perform in a tiny fraction of a second more
numerical calculations than were computed from the start of time to
Edington's day.

VALIDITY OF THE EDDINGTON APPROXIMATION TO THE RADIATIVE TRANSPORT EQUATION,

Abstract : The mean intensity of the radiation field, J, is calculated
assuming various LTE and non-LTE source functions using both the exact
expressions and the Eddington approximation, for planeparallel geometries.
The results are used to determine the maximum error encountered in using the
Eddington approximation and the optical depth where the maximum error occurs
in layers of various thicknesses. It is found that by assuming the Krook
modification of the surface boundary conditions the maximum error to be
encountered is generally less than 10-15% as long as the total optical

thickness of the layer is greater than or approximately unity.

Accession Number : AD0468719, Author Kulander, John L., JUL 1965

The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
incorrect.

You do realize don't you that the calculations that describe a pendula and
springs are also incorrect, and all of Newton's laws of motion are known to
be incorrect. In fact, virtually every function written in every physics
text is known to be incorrect.

Yet within their range of applicability they work very well don't they?

"Mike" <n00s... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote

The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
about 8%.

Well that is entirely wrong, as the reference above indicates.

But one has to wonder how you know it's wrong? Did a magic radiation elf
tell you? Or were do you claim that there is a more accurate method of
computing the temperature profile?

And if there is, prove to us that it's not being used in the climate
models.

We await your response with laughter.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

MMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN

On May 10, 11:12 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On May 8, 11:07 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 2:55 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.

So may we suppose that your failure to do so indicates you have less
education/IQ than a "decent highschool (sic) student?

Try to follow. There's nothing to pick apart. Arrhenius never
presented a definitive, testable hypothesis. All he did was make some
vague speculations. Get a clue, dumbass.

On May 11, 8:25 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:





On May 10, 11:12 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On May 8, 11:07 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 2:55 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.

So may we suppose that your failure to do so indicates you have less
education/IQ than a "decent highschool (sic) student?

Try to follow.  There's nothing to pick apart.  Arrhenius never
presented a definitive, testable hypothesis.  All he did was make some
vague speculations.  Get a clue, dumbass.

Hey there, Dimmy. You can't pick it apart either , huh?

You are demonstrating the whacko mindset. Arrhenius did nothing more
than make back-of-the-envelope speculations about CO2 and atmospheric
temperatures.

I'm a liar huh?

ERROR 1
Sea level "rising 6 m"

ERROR 2
Pacific islands "drowning"

ERROR 3
Thermohaline circulation "stopping"

ERROR 4
CO2 "driving temperature"

ERROR 5
Gore says "global warming" has been melting the snows of Mount
Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.

ERROR 6
Lake Chad "drying up" Gore says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in
Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural
patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC
and 100BC.

ERROR 7
Hurricane Katrina "man made"

ERROR 8
Polar bears "dying"

ERROR 9
Gore says coral reefs are "bleaching" because of "global warming."
They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by
the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year.

ERROR 10
100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"

ERROR 11
Hurricane Caterina "manmade"

ERROR 12
Japanese typhoons "a new record"

ERROR 13
Hurricanes "getting stronger"

ERROR 14
Big storm insurances losses "increasing"

ERROR 15
Mumbai "flooding"

ERROR 16
Severe tornadoes "more frequent"

ERROR 17
The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"

ERROR 18
Arctic "warming fastest" Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster
than the rest of the planet. It is not.

ERROR 19
Greenland ice sheet "unstable"

ERROR 20
Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"

On May 10, 11:34 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:



On May 11, 8:25 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On May 10, 11:12 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On May 8, 11:07 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 8, 2:55 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.

Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.

So may we suppose that your failure to do so indicates you have less
education/IQ than a "decent highschool (sic) student?

Try to follow. There's nothing to pick apart. Arrhenius never
presented a definitive, testable hypothesis. All he did was make some
vague speculations. Get a clue, dumbass.

Hey there, Dimmy. You can't pick it apart either , huh?

You're such a complete dimwit I can only think you must, in actuality,
be Al Gore.

Admit it, All. John M. is your sockpuppet.

"zdzis1" <zdzis1 at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote
Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
is positive, and negative.

Here you are:
the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
(0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296,
0.03762496) thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's
all we know.

I'm sorry. That didn't answer the question put to you...

What is the probability that the slope is positive? And what is the
probability that the slope is negative?

You were asked for two probabilities, not a single combined probability.

MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
I gave you a typical answer you get in statistics. But if you insist on

"zdzis1" <zdzis1 at (no spam) 31.pl> wrote
the linear model is obviously bullshit here,

Oh, I see, it should be quadratic or something. Ahahahahahahahahah
You can ahahaha all you want. Linear is bullshit, quadratic is bullsht,

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN

Now here is your opportunity to answer the question put to you.
I have. Now, I remembered asking you a question: what does p-value > 0.05

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN