Cat_in_awe wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
The supply of morons who do not know the
difference between local weather and global
climate endless. P.T. Barnum claimed that
one is born every minute.


By definition 'climate' is a regional phenomenon, not a global one.

Nope.


Also, please note that climate is DEFINED as prevailing *regional*
*weather* conditions.

cli·mate (kl�Æmit), n.
1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a
*region*, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation,
sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a
series of years.
Why don't you be accurate and talk about 'averages of min and max
temperatures' and not climate. Global climate is an oxymoron.

Dumbass post.

Roger Coppock wrote:
ROTFLMSAO!

Peter, I am REALLY Rolling On the Floor Laughing
My Sweet Ass Off! No kidding, when I saw your
reply, I laughed so hard I fell off my chair. You're
either very very dumb and totally ignorant of
statistics, OR you're spin doctoring. Which is it?

Fossil fools wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Here is one of many reasons why.

That is the substance of your response?

What a waste of time & bandwidth.

Your propaganda is uncovered and you cower behind your non-responses,
yet again.

Go away.

Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
ROTFLMSAO!

Peter, I am REALLY Rolling On the Floor Laughing
My Sweet Ass Off! No kidding, when I saw your
reply, I laughed so hard I fell off my chair. You're
either very very dumb and totally ignorant of
statistics, OR you're spin doctoring. Which is it?

Fossil fools wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Here is one of many reasons why.

That is the substance of your response?

What a waste of time & bandwidth.

Kinda like setting up crazyass arbitrary conditions, eh? lol

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:40:59 -0500, tvor wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
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:




Boy I hope so!! I don't know if some people around here are going to be
able to afford to heat their homes this winter!




But think of the destruction of a longer growing season!

"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:40:59 -0500, tvor wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
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:




Boy I hope so!! I don't know if some people around here are going to be
able to afford to heat their homes this winter!




But think of the destruction of a longer growing season!

If we raise the ocean levels enough does that mean we can start drilling off
the coast of Florida without asking for permission from the EPA?

"tvor" wrote:


"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 12:40:59 -0500, tvor wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
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:




Boy I hope so!! I don't know if some people around here are going to be
able to afford to heat their homes this winter!




But think of the destruction of a longer growing season!

If we raise the ocean levels enough does that mean we can start drilling off
the coast of Florida without asking for permission from the EPA?



How do you plan to raise sea level, and when do you plan to start?

I don't know who's worse, Peter, or you Joem.
The math for the analysis of trends is two centuries
old. It's called linear regression. Neither you
nor Peter have stumbled into anything better.

Your local junior college may offer a course in
introductory statistics. I would recommend it
to you.


On Oct 6, 12:38*pm, Joern Abatz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:20:08 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
The satellite record, in all its current interpretations, shows that the
air near the surface is warming.

If it weren't for the wise guy, one might think it was cooling.

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

----- 2006 * 2007 *diff

Sep *0.274 *0.201 -0.073
Oct *0.341 *0.231 -0.110
Nov *0.288 *0.209 -0.079
Dec *0.308 *0.114 -0.196

----- 2007 * 2008

Jan *0.594 -0.046 -0.640
Feb *0.450 *0.020 -0.430
Mar *0.403 *0.089 -0.314
Apr *0.244 *0.015 -0.229
May *0.199 -0.183 -0.382
Jun *0.203 -0.114 -0.317
Jul *0.255 *0.047 -0.208
Aug *0.286 -0.007 -0.293
Sep *0.201 *0.161 -0.040 === we are here

Joern

Roger Coppock wrote:
I don't know who's worse, Peter, or you Joem.
The math for the analysis of trends is two centuries
old. It's called linear regression. Neither you
nor Peter have stumbled into anything better.

Your local junior college may offer a course in
introductory statistics. I would recommend it
to you.

I noticed that you didn't refute any of my conclusions.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:52:19 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

I don't know who's worse, Peter, or you Joem.

Is that namecalling or just a typo, Rogue?

The math for the analysis
of trends is two centuries old.

Are we insulting our own math now? Things not going so well lately, huh?
All quiet on the warming front, huh? Where's your mounting evidence now?
Remember: statistics is not evidence. It's probability of interpretation
being right.

It's called linear regression.

No, it's called least square fitting. And you're using it all the time.
Also: You started using linear regression after I did in this group. Do
you really think no one noticed?

Neither you
nor Peter have stumbled into anything better.

I think he hast polynomial best fit on his website. (Which is also least
square fitting, only with polynom order higher than one.)

Anybody with a math degree knows you have no clue, you're only pretending.
Everybody who knows the math would reveal their methods, so others can
verify the results. You don't reveal your methods, because you don't know
them. You're just using a computer program. Also: your notorical
recommending of statistics 101 gives it away: you're hiding cluelessness.

I respect your fighting for a better world, though. Only I think, AGW is
just not there. Having a discussion is still one of the best ways to find
out who's right. If only you would start behaving like a grown up.

Joern

One winter season "around here" is not a large
enough sample for a climate trend.

Neither is 30 years given the age of the earth.