February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASAglobal record.
On Mar 14, 7:59*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:51*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?
and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?
This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.
Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.
A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. *2009 - 1991 = 18
Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. *No warming
over 18 years.
I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.
Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.
When are you going to learn it.
For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.
Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.
A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.
What is your qualification?
Irrelevant Q.
A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, ...
JohnM, please do not assume that other people act in the same way that
you do. Liars often suspect that other people are lying to them.
... as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level)
falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.
JohnM, congratulations on being able to look up some big words in the
dictionary. A word of advice, it pays to spell these words correctly
and consistently, because otherwise people will think that you don't
really know what they mean.
You have unfortunately (for you) chosen a topic which I have some
experience in.
A lot of my statistical training is in econometrics, and econometrics
frequently deals with data exhibiting heteroskedasticity.
You will (of course) realise that heteroskedasticity does not cause
ordinary least squares coefficient estimates to be biased.
However, the variance (and therefore the standard errors) of the
coefficients tends to be underestimated. This inflates t-scores, and
sometimes makes insignificant variables appear to be statistically
significant.
----------
But it won't of course as I've already done it and checked.
Well JohnM, since you claim that you have already done this analysis,
I will allow you to post your results, and bask in the glory that
comes from proving that you have spoken the truth.
What's that JohnM. You have misplaced the results? Now that is a
shame. It looks like you are going to have to do it again, otherwise
everyone will think that you are lying.
|