joe six pack wrote:


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a great graphic of global yearly mean temperatures,
their error bounds, and their chronological decades from the
Met Office: Please see:


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...pr20071213.gif

Plenty of global warming on our planet!
It definitely is not slowing down, either.

How can you say it's not slowing down since 1998?

In the same way that we would have if you'd asked at the start of 1998 "how
can you say it's not slowing down since 1990?" or asked the same question
at the start of 1990 regarding 1981, etc.

If you're going to pick an outlier to start from, why not choose 1997 or
1999? I think we know the answer to that one!

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

"joe six pack" wrote in message
...

"Ouroboros_Rex" wrote in message
...

"joe six pack" wrote in message
...

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a great graphic of global yearly mean temperatures,
their error bounds, and their chronological decades from the
Met Office: Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...pr20071213.gif

Plenty of global warming on our planet!
It definitely is not slowing down, either.

How can you say it's not slowing down since 1998?

Simple - 1998 is an outlier, the trend proceeds to rise again
afterwards.


Not on the link I click.

Maybe not, but certainly on the one supplied. No one with any
understanding of statistics will be able to truthfully deny it. That's
pretty much all there is to that.

"joe six pack" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a great graphic of global yearly mean temperatures,
their error bounds, and their chronological decades from the
Met Office: Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...pr20071213.gif

Plenty of global warming on our planet!
It definitely is not slowing down, either.

How can you say it's not slowing down since 1998?

Using anomalies is claimed to avoid certain errors,
but it also allows some hanky panky and some delusions
to seem realistic.

To prove there is something wrong with the process
of averaging or the method used, I offer to reconsider my
opinion if _ONLY_ the maximums are averaged and compared
to a baseline, and make the baseline as antique as reasonable,
I am not convinced there is any higher average maximums,
and it is silly to claim warming if it is only the minimums that
have not been as low because of cloudy nights.

The fact that cloud cover can distort a single day's
average, while a cloudless night may just result in a normal
minimum, is a clear distortion of the purpose of the endeavor.

This is even if there is no doctoring done to perpetuate
grants and budgets.