"Poetic Justice" wrote
Well they did only get back 29 of 31 shuttles....

RepubliKKKan budget cuts.

"Bill Ward" wrote
Take a look at this

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...dex=0&hl=en-CA

Even better

On Apr 13, 4:16 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"Bawana" wrote

Can't do real science...take temperatures.

And here I thought you just spent a week demanding that warming be proved
by experiment.

Never happened, you delusional ****tard.
I asked if there ever was a successful experiment altering the global
climate.
Nobody came up with any.
The consensus is NO there has never been an experiment altering the
global climate.

Now you claim that taking experimental data is not real
science.

It's worthless science.

Can't do real science...take temperatures.

"mrbawana2u" wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 4:16 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"Bawana" wrote

Can't do real science...take temperatures.

And here I thought you just spent a week demanding that warming be
proved
by experiment.

Never happened, you delusional ****tard.
I asked if there ever was a successful experiment altering the global
climate.
Nobody came up with any.
The consensus is NO there has never been an experiment altering the
global climate.

Actually, there has been. It was first proposed and initiated in earnest a
little over a century ago and has thus far demonstrated that the
anthropogenic release of sequestered carbon in the form of the open-cycle
combustion of massive quantities of fossil-fuels can eventually result in a
gradual warming of the planetary climate. Reference Arvid Högbom circa 1896.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

On Apr 13, 10:10 pm, "Trakar" TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net wrote:
"mrbawana2u" wrote in message

...



On Apr 13, 4:16 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"Bawana" wrote

Can't do real science...take temperatures.

And here I thought you just spent a week demanding that warming be
proved
by experiment.

Never happened, you delusional ****tard.
I asked if there ever was a successful experiment altering the global
climate.
Nobody came up with any.
The consensus is NO there has never been an experiment altering the
global climate.

Actually, there has been.

Yeah, in the delusional mind of a retarded sockpuppet.

It was first proposed and initiated in earnest a
little over a century ago and has thus far demonstrated that the
anthropogenic release of sequestered carbon in the form of the open-cycle
combustion of massive quantities of fossil-fuels can eventually result in a
gradual warming of the planetary climate. Reference Arvid Högbom circa 1896.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

You don't have any idea what an experiment is, do you, retarded
sockpuppet?

"We have to learn again that science without contact with
experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray
into imaginary conjecture." -- Hannes Alfven

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually
build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla

On Apr 14, 5:30 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"mrbawana2u" wrote

You don't have any idea what an experiment is, do you, retarded
sockpuppet?

Another was the release of massive quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere
from the burning of coal - resulting is sulphate aresols that reduced the
amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.

This experiment was ended in the late 1960's and early 1970's as
environmental regulations required the addition of scrubbers on the smoke
stacks of Coal Fired Power Plants.

How did than change the global climate, ****tard?

I'm an insipidly stupid MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

You give yourself way too muck credit, vd scuttle nutts.

On Apr 13, 10:53 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:32:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:49 am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:55:40 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:15 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:14:20 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:43 pm, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:34 am, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock
wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice
-n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's
129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do
several other
organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for
UHI using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting,
measured from satellites. IMHO, this method is better than
using census data to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a
rural area near to the urban station to act as a control
(being a sicnetist you wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore
the urban station data since rural data is true surface
temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming
trend. RURAL STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL
TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data.
Unless you're trying to scare people, of course.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction, you
are more than
welcome to present them here. Until then the data presented
above are a better indication of reality than your fantasies.

Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's.
That's the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's
bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging
bad data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix
it.

It is even worse than that. I suspect there is an analogy with
wine making. I knew of a winemaker who had a small amount of wine
made from under ripe grapes. He blended it (10%) with some good
wine 90%). That small amount ruined the whole lot. A "Little BAD
Goes a LONG ways". I suspect the same is true of data. A little
bad or incorrect can have effects that are way beyond suspected
results.

Such are the musings of a statistical illiterate. In actual
practice, the way to avoid problems from extraneous or erroneous
data (ie. bad) is to swamp it by using large sample sizes. If you
measure the height of 100 men taken at random, the mean height will
be virtually unchanged should one or two of them be giants or
dwarves.

This is what happens in practice with temperature data. Very large
sample size ensures that the famous UHIs will have little effect on
the calculated global means.

Only if you can prove the assumption that all errors are
symmetrically distributed. Otherwise it's a fantasy. Or a hoax.

Ah. Another statistical illiterate crawls from the woodwork, to give
us his take on something he knows little or nothing about.

The manner in which the residuals are distributed is immaterial. It is
merely required that their distribution remains the same in repeat
samples.

So it doesn't matter to you if there are more errors showing increasing
warming than showing cooling? I think I see your problem. You are
reading "residuals", where I wrote "errors". Don't you know the
difference?

Generally speaking, statistical errors can never be quantified. I simply
corrected your sloppy language, as it was clear to what you referred.

Then you don't understand. An "error" in a measurement is the difference
between the measured value and the "true value", as measured by a perfect
sensor and protocol.

A "residual" is the difference between the observed measurement and the
value calculated by some mathematical model (least squares line, for Roger).

Which, as I pointed out already, was what you meant when you wrote
error. You really ought to try to comprehend the subject matter before
posting.

An error applies individually to each measurement, independent of all the
others. The residuals simply tell how well the measurement fits the
model. If errors are biased high (e.g. air conditioning waste heat
increasing with time), the signal will be biased high, and attempts to
"correct" the error without knowing the exact value will simply corrupt
the data.

It's kind of funny seeing you accuse others of being "statistical
illiterates", with "sloppy language", when you clearly don't have a clue
what you're talking about? People notice these things, you know.

Let's hope they get a laugh from your nonsense, at least. Here's a
line from Wikipedia that statisticians have failed to spot and
correct: "A residual (or fitting error), on the other hand, is an
observable estimate of the unobservable statistical error." Anyone can
write in Wikipedia so why don't you correct this yourself?

"mrbawana2u" wrote
You don't have any idea what an experiment is, do you, retarded
sockpuppet?

Another was the release of massive quantities of SO2 into the atmosphere
from the burning of coal - resulting is sulphate aresols that reduced the
amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.

This experiment was ended in the late 1960's and early 1970's as
environmental regulations required the addition of scrubbers on the smoke
stacks of Coal Fired Power Plants.

Bawana = MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

On Apr 13, 1:18*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
wrote

*According to the more reliable UAH, *it was the second coldest March
since 2000

2001. *You can't even read your own reference.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

As usual, Vendicar spews his lying insults. Lets see,
March 2008
shows a temperature anomaly of + 0.094.

March 2007 + 0.403
March 2006 +0.325
March 2005 +0.351
March 2004 +0.202
March 2003 +0.220
March 2002 +0.376
March 2001 +0.160
March 2000 + 0.059.

March 2000 was the only colder month since 2000, that Makes March
2008 the second coldest month since 2000, as I stated before. March
2008 was the COLDEST March in the 21st century- A. McIntire

On Apr 14, 5:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 13, 1:18*pm, "V-for-Vendicar"

wrote:
wrote

*According to the more reliable UAH, *it was the second coldest March
since 2000

2001. *You can't even read your own reference.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

* As usual, Vendicar spews his lying insults. *Lets see,
*March 2008
shows a temperature anomaly of + 0.094.

March 2007 *+ 0.403
March 2006 *+0.325
March 2005 *+0.351
March 2004 *+0.202
March 2003 +0.220
March 2002 +0.376
March 2001 +0.160
March 2000 + 0.059.

*March 2000 was the only colder month since 2000, that Makes March
2008 the second coldest month since 2000, as I stated before. *March
2008 was the COLDEST March in the 21st century- A. McIntire

Your local junior college very probably
offers a course in elementary statistics.
Take it. You need it. Pay close attention
when they talk about confidence and standard
error.

MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNN