Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
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

Because he can't.

Peter Franks wrote:
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,

A ridiculous lie.

Peter Franks wrote:
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
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

Because he can't.

A ridiculous lie.

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
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,

A ridiculous lie.

That remains unchallenged.

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
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
Because he can't.

A ridiculous lie.

You can't either.

Lloyd wrote:
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

I forgot; we're dealing with Lloid who worships at the feet of any and every
scientific group. If it's a group, they only can spout truth from on high.
Just ask Lloid, he'll tell you.

Just because AGW alarmists have misused the word doesn't make the word mean
anything they want it to. You'd think scientists would know better.



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!

Sorry for posting the actual definition of the word. I know how dizzy you
get when presented with facts.

On Oct 7, 4:16*pm, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:
Lloyd wrote:
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

I forgot; we're dealing with Lloid who worships at the feet of any and every
scientific group. *If it's a group, they only can spout truth from on high.
Just ask Lloid, he'll tell you.


Yeah, I'd rather believe the National Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society, NASA, EPA, NOAA, AGU, APS. You'd rather believe blogs and
right-wing newspapers. Tells me a lot about your lack of maturity,
judgment, and intellect.

Just because AGW alarmists have misused the word doesn't make the word mean
anything they want it to. *You'd think scientists would know better.



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!

Sorry for posting the actual definition of the word. *I know how dizzy you
get when presented with facts.

Michael Dobony wrote:
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!

Yep the price of food will drop and the poor will get FAT and have heart
disease and no health insurance... what a disaster.

On Oct 7, 5:01*pm, *Poetic Justice* -n-
Dog.com wrote:
Michael Dobony wrote:
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!

Yep the price of food will drop and the poor will get FAT and have heart
disease and no health insurance... * what a disaster.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

na, you will just get more lazy than you already are....

"Joern Abatz" wrote in message

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.


It doen't take a degree to understand that Roger's posts are clueless
drivel.
Although his claims are useless, he does provide some comedy.