On Oct 7, 1:04*am, matt_sykes wrote:
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.

The age of the Earth is irrelevant to this particular
problem, Matt.

On Oct 6, 8:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
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.

Ha! Ha!

On Oct 6, 1:59*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
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
...

Actually, you are wrong. *I really have no idea what you consider the
"Latest Satellite Data", and you obviously and apparently fail to
qualify such vague statements. *My CS degree taught me precision in
definition, and appropriately, I will qualify my statements.

I consider the the "Latest Satellite Data" to mean 1 year. *So,
consider the data for temperature anomalies for 2008, using the source
you provided:

* ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365
* * YEAR *MON *GLOBAL

* * 2008 * *1 *-0.046
* * 2008 * *2 * 0.020
* * 2008 * *3 * 0.089
* * 2008 * *4 * 0.015
* * 2008 * *5 *-0.183
* * 2008 * *6 *-0.114
* * 2008 * *7 * 0.047
* * 2008 * *8 *-0.007
* * 2008 * *9 * 0.161

The average of which is -0.002. *That means we are currently BELOW 0 for
the temperature anomaly when considering the average.

But let's not just limit our discussion to that fact.

Considering the 12-month running average, again using your source, and
again for 2008:

12-MON RUNNING MEAN
* * YEAR *MON *GLOBAL

* * 2008 * *1 *0.227
* * 2008 * *2 *0.194
* * 2008 * *3 *0.166
* * 2008 * *4 *0.148
* * 2008 * *5 *0.116
* * 2008 * *6 *0.089
* * 2008 * *7 *0.072
* * 2008 * *8 *0.047
* * 2008 * *9 *0.044

You don't even need a graph to see that the trend is CLEARLY TOWARD ZERO
(read: COOLING).

Uh, slower warming is not cooling. That's like saying slower speed
means backing up, or slower spending means saving.


So, Roger my friend, your assertion that "Latest Satellite Data Show A
Warming Global Climate" has been proved FALSE; twice I might add, and
using your data.

Have a nice, COOLING, day.

Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
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
...
Actually, you are wrong. I really have no idea what you consider the
"Latest Satellite Data", and you obviously and apparently fail to
qualify such vague statements. My CS degree taught me precision in
definition, and appropriately, I will qualify my statements.

I consider the the "Latest Satellite Data" to mean 1 year. So,
consider the data for temperature anomalies for 2008, using the source
you provided:

ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.089
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.183
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7 0.047
2008 8 -0.007
2008 9 0.161

The average of which is -0.002. That means we are currently BELOW 0 for
the temperature anomaly when considering the average.

But let's not just limit our discussion to that fact.

Considering the 12-month running average, again using your source, and
again for 2008:

12-MON RUNNING MEAN
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 0.227
2008 2 0.194
2008 3 0.166
2008 4 0.148
2008 5 0.116
2008 6 0.089
2008 7 0.072
2008 8 0.047
2008 9 0.044

You don't even need a graph to see that the trend is CLEARLY TOWARD ZERO
(read: COOLING).

Uh, slower warming is not cooling. That's like saying slower speed
means backing up, or slower spending means saving.

Uh, time to actually read the data instead of guessing.

It doesn't show slower warming, it shows cooling.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
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.

Ha! Ha!

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

On Oct 6, 3:14*pm, "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. *Also,
please note that climate is DEFINED as prevailing *regional* *weather*
conditions.

"The Earth's climate..." -- EPA
"The scientists who labored to understand the Earth's climate..." --
AIP
"Global climate change..." AAAS
"climate change n. an alteration in the regional or global climate" --
OED



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.

Cuckoo!

Peter Franks wrote:
Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
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
...
Actually, you are wrong. I really have no idea what you consider
the "Latest Satellite Data", and you obviously and apparently fail
to qualify such vague statements. My CS degree taught me precision
in definition, and appropriately, I will qualify my statements.

I consider the the "Latest Satellite Data" to mean 1 year. So,
consider the data for temperature anomalies for 2008, using the
source you provided:

ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.089
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.183
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7 0.047
2008 8 -0.007
2008 9 0.161

The average of which is -0.002. That means we are currently BELOW
0 for the temperature anomaly when considering the average.

But let's not just limit our discussion to that fact.

Considering the 12-month running average, again using your source,
and again for 2008:

12-MON RUNNING MEAN
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 0.227
2008 2 0.194
2008 3 0.166
2008 4 0.148
2008 5 0.116
2008 6 0.089
2008 7 0.072
2008 8 0.047
2008 9 0.044

You don't even need a graph to see that the trend is CLEARLY TOWARD
ZERO (read: COOLING).

Uh, slower warming is not cooling. That's like saying slower speed
means backing up, or slower spending means saving.

Uh, time to actually read the data instead of guessing.

It doesn't show slower warming, it shows cooling.

Poor Petey is incapable of following the news. It's been a La Nina year,
as everyone who cares knows.

Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 6, 8:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
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.

Ha! Ha!

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

Why bother? lol

Joern Abatz wrote:
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.

It's really not, you know. And there's no longer any real controversy
regarding AGW, except for how fast we want to proceed.

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Lloyd wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
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
...
Actually, you are wrong. I really have no idea what you consider
the "Latest Satellite Data", and you obviously and apparently fail
to qualify such vague statements. My CS degree taught me precision
in definition, and appropriately, I will qualify my statements.

I consider the the "Latest Satellite Data" to mean 1 year. So,
consider the data for temperature anomalies for 2008, using the
source you provided:

ANNUAL CYCLE BASED ON 79001-98365
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.089
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.183
2008 6 -0.114
2008 7 0.047
2008 8 -0.007
2008 9 0.161

The average of which is -0.002. That means we are currently BELOW
0 for the temperature anomaly when considering the average.

But let's not just limit our discussion to that fact.

Considering the 12-month running average, again using your source,
and again for 2008:

12-MON RUNNING MEAN
YEAR MON GLOBAL

2008 1 0.227
2008 2 0.194
2008 3 0.166
2008 4 0.148
2008 5 0.116
2008 6 0.089
2008 7 0.072
2008 8 0.047
2008 9 0.044

You don't even need a graph to see that the trend is CLEARLY TOWARD
ZERO (read: COOLING).
Uh, slower warming is not cooling. That's like saying slower speed
means backing up, or slower spending means saving.
Uh, time to actually read the data instead of guessing.

It doesn't show slower warming, it shows cooling.

Poor Petey is incapable of following the news. It's been a La Nina year,
as everyone who cares knows.

Don't tell me, tell Roger, after all he is the one proclaiming that
"Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate".

I've shown that to be false, and you have bolstered my argument.