On Apr 7, 1:31*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 6, 6:05*pm, "BobLl" wrote:





"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

The global data given above are graphed he

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.39055 * *2.13541 * -11.9 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01277 * *0.00107 * *11.9 * 7.27e-28
---

Residual standard error: 0.179 on 362 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.282
F-statistic: *142 on 1 and 362 DF, *p-value: *7.27e-28

Yes I got the same result *0.0128 deg C warming per year for the full global
data set since 1988. * However if you do the same analysis for 1998 through
the present you get a cooling trend of 0.0044 deg C per year - going on for
the last 10 years.

Yes, we all know that there was a warm spike a decade
ago. *Fossil fool love to cherry pick data to place
that spike at the start of their biased interval.

Now be a good first year statistics student and compute
R squared a p-value for your cherry pie. *A R-squared
of 0 and p-value of 0.359 is not significant. *These
data do not support your statement about a cooling trend
over the last 10 years.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) * * * * * * * * 9.09247 * *9.62200 * *0.94 * * 0.35
YEARMON[K:length(YEARMON)] -0.00442 * *0.00480 * -0.92 * * 0.36

Residual standard error: 0.181 on 133 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.00634, * *Adjusted R-squared: -0.00113
F-statistic: 0.849 on 1 and 133 DF, *p-value: 0.359

Yes, we all know that there was a warm spike a decade
ago. Fossil fool love to cherry pick data to place
that spike at the start of their biased interval.

Yes, we all know that AGW Alarmist Crackpots claimed the warm spike as
evidence of accelerating global warming when it occurred. Then when
the temperature dropped like a stone, they quickly changed their story
to try and cover their backsides.

Roger, and all other AGW Alarmist Crackpots, refuse to look at any
temperatures that occurred after the warm spike (because it proves
that AGW is wrong). Roger still lives in the time period between 1980
and 1998, and all of his regressions feature the warm spike near the
end of the time range, because this is the only way that he can get a
positive slope.