Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Therefore, we are in the fourth year of a November cooling trend, correct?

In a word, "NO."

Let's analyze this biased world of your cherry picked data:

Ok, so how many years of decreasing temperatures (cooling) in November
must exist before it can be considered a trend?

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote
How about the typical number of years between ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

A more statistically significant measure of what exactly?

If you measure the length of a coastline by the inch and the length of a
coastline by 100 mile intervals, which is more "statistically significant"
and in what way?

I await your non-response with preemptive laughter..

Ahahahahahahahahahahahah.........

You've confused validity with statistical
significance. You're asking for more data than
you need because of that mistake.


"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote
Oh, I see, it does not matter if in is invalid as
long as it is statistical significant.

More likely the converse. It doesn't matter if it is statistically
significant if it is invalid.

Odd that you wouldn't have figured that out for yourself.


"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote
Try taking some basic Geology courses at your
junior college.

The geology courses I took in university didn't have anyting to say about
statistics, but did say much about the observed warming trend in the Earth's
climate.

"Peter Franks" wrote
Ok, so how many years of decreasing temperatures (cooling) in November
must exist before it can be considered a trend?

You have to be able to compute a viable trendline. And that depends on
the randomess of the system.

If you flip a coin twice and it comes up heads twice, is the trend toward
all heads? A preponderance of hads? ???

So much for your two point trend line.

On Dec 17, 9:12 am, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Therefore, we are in the fourth year of a November cooling trend, correct?

In a word, "NO."

Let's analyze this biased world of your cherry picked data:

Ok, so how many years of decreasing temperatures (cooling) in November
must exist before it can be considered a trend?

It is not years, per se. It is statistical significance.

Usually, with the variance in these data it's about three decades.
to get something convincing.

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Dec 17, 9:12 am, Peter Franks
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 16, 5:37 pm, Peter Franks
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Therefore, we are in the fourth year of a
November cooling trend, correct?

In a word, "NO."

Let's analyze this biased world of your
cherry picked data:

Ok, so how many years of decreasing
temperatures (cooling) in November must exist
before it can be considered a trend?

It is not years, per se. It is statistical
significance.

Usually, with the variance in these data it's
about three decades. to get something
convincing.

How about the typical number of years between ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
[ . . . ]
How about the typical number of years between ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

You've confused validity with statistical significance.
You're asking for more data than you need because of
that mistake.

Try taking an introductory statistics course at your
local junior college. That would help you here, A LOT!

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
[ . . . ]
How about the typical number of years between
ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

You've confused validity with statistical
significance. You're asking for more data than
you need because of that mistake.

Oh, I see, it does not matter if in is invalid as
long as it is statistical significant.

Try taking some basic Geology courses at your
junior college. Failing that, go to the gambling
casinos and apply your statistics.


Try taking an introductory statistics course at
your
local junior college. That would help you here,
A LOT!

On Dec 18, 11:37 am, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
[ . . . ]
How about the typical number of years between
ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

You've confused validity with statistical
significance. You're asking for more data than
you need because of that mistake.

Oh, I see, it does not matter if in is invalid as
long as it is statistical significant.

Try taking some basic Geology courses at your
junior college. Failing that, go to the gambling
casinos and apply your statistics.

Try taking an introductory statistics course at
your
local junior college. That would help you here,
A LOT!

So is Roger all that he claims to be ?

chemist wrote:

On Dec 18, 11:37 am, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
[ . . . ]
How about the typical number of years
between ice
ages. That would be more statistical
significant.

You've confused validity with statistical
significance. You're asking for more data
than you need because of that mistake.

Oh, I see, it does not matter if in is invalid
as long as it is statistical significant.

Try taking some basic Geology courses at your
junior college. Failing that, go to the
gambling casinos and apply your statistics.

Try taking an introductory statistics course
at your
local junior college. That would help you
here, A LOT!

So is Roger all that he claims to be ?

Roger is a science "Wanna Be" without the training
or intelligence.