On 20 Feb, 19:34, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
matt_sykes wrote:
On 19 Feb, 15:18, Maggsy wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:48*am, matt_sykes wrote:
On 17 fév, 14:46, Maggsy wrote:
On Feb 17, 11:42*am, matt_sykes wrote:
On 16 Feb, 22:33, Roger Coppock wrote:
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) -25.75364 * *2.06182 * -12.5 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01295 * *0.00103 * *12.5 * 2.8e-30
Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: *157 on 1 and 372 DF, *p-value: 2.82e-30
You are being lied to Roger. *The data can not be trusted.
Prove it?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
80% less weather stations are used today to collate data by GISS and
NCDC than in the 1980s.
What is your source for this?
If the issue of AGW is so impotant why?
It's important because if it's not caused by us then probably we can't
do anything about it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/* *The graph in the
middle. *Scary isnt it, and its even on thier own website.
The most scary thing ist, they don't offer unmodified raw data!
You can only choose among their specifications:
a) Raw GHCN data + USHCN corrections
b) after combining sources at same location
c) after homogeneity adjustment
All these 3 options mean applied modification and no real sources.
Of course, if GW is an important issue why are they not MORE stations
being used?
One is always tempted to asume that its only the stations that show
wartming that have been kept.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yep, like the CRU, they hide the raw data.
I like Dalys site for raw station data. I validated the central
england series against the MEt office web site and it tallied so I am
confident what he has on his site os correct. And it makes
fascinating viewing.
Much of Australia is cooling for example. Even Adelaide, whuich is
urban.