XPost: alt.global-warming, sci.skeptic, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/25/2025 11:21 PM, JTEM wrote:   
   >   Dawn Flood wrote:   
   >   
   >> Regression Analysis: Annual Temp versus CO2 (1959 to 2024)   
   >   
   > "Analysis," huh?  Stop at the first four letters and you'd   
   > be the most "Scientific" you've ever been...   
   >   
   > The Holocene is almost 12,000 years old by popular dating, closer   
   > to 15,000 years old when accounting for the Younger Dryas cooling   
   > and you're looking at all of 65 years. That's it.   
   >   
   > BUT IT'S EVEN MORE RETARDED THAN THAT!   
   >   
   > Your "Analysis" is predicated on the retarded assumption that   
   > the "Climate" was always stagnant, and should be, until your   
   > precious Gwobull Warbling gospels tell you it suddenly wasn't.   
   >   
   > Again, quite retarded.   
   >   
   > This is why you can't compare the Holocene to ITSELF, much less   
   > the most insignificant sliver of the Holocene to itself...   
   >   
   > For crying out loud, the Holocene has seen SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER   
   > swings in climate than you're pretending to see!   
   >   
   > HINT:  Note my mention of the Younger Dryas cooling and how it   
   > muddles -- completely obscures -- the very start of the   
   > Holocene!  That's because the climate reversed itself, it   
   > warmed up, the glaciers were in full retreat and then, BAM! It   
   > got cold again and the glaciers grew... again... only for it   
   > to eventually reverse itself... again... the glaciers retreating...   
   > again....   
   >   
   > AND THAT'S JUST THE START!   
   >   
   > There's been ups & downs all through the Holocene, periods warmer   
   > and colder than the present, so you have to go from foolish to   
   > just plain retarded in your "Comparisons" to even imagine your   
   > Gwobull Warbling in the first place!   
   >   
   > AND THEN we ignore 'tards pretending to be doing "Science" and   
   > insist on a comparison of the Holocene to the Eemian and, WOW!   
   > It's cold. Our interglacial, our "Warm Period" on the whole is   
   > cold. Sea level is too LOW.   
   >   
   > Wow. And all we had to do is not be retarded and shit out some   
   > idiocy, calling it an "Analysis."   
   >   
      
   If what you are claiming is true, then, eventually, global temperatures   
   will decrease.   
      
   I added an indicator variable for the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption,   
   which did not change the R-Squared adjusted, but #33 (1992, the year   
   after the eruption) seems to indicate some minor improvement in the   
   regression:   
      
      
   Regression Analysis:  Annual Temp versus CO2 (1959 to 2024) with VEI 6   
   or 7 for a major volcanic eruption (only one in 1991)   
      
   The regression equation is   
   Temp = - 348 + 1.07 CO2 + 6.55 VEI 6 or  7   
      
      
   Predictor       Coef  SE Coef       T      P   
   Constant     -348.07    13.23  -26.32  0.000   
   CO2          1.07258  0.03656   29.34  0.000   
   VEI 6 or  7    6.555    9.536    0.69  0.494   
      
      
   S = 9.46195   R-Sq = 93.2%   R-Sq(adj) = 93.0%   
      
      
   Analysis of Variance   
      
   Source          DF     SS     MS       F      P   
   Regression       2  77060  38530  430.36  0.000   
   Residual Error  63   5640     90   
   Total           65  82700   
      
      
   Source       DF  Seq SS   
   CO2           1   77018   
   VEI 6 or  7   1      42   
      
      
   Unusual Observations   
      
   Obs  CO2    Temp     Fit  SE Fit  Residual  St Resid   
     33  356   40.00   40.00    9.46      0.00         * X   
     66  425  128.00  107.36    2.63     20.64      2.27R   
      
   R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.   
   X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large influence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)