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

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.4841 2.2049 -11.6 2e-16
YEARMON 0.01281 0.00111 11.6 1.47e-26

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 356 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.274
F-statistic: 134 on 1 and 356 DF, p-value: 1.47e-26

"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!








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

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.4841 2.2049 -11.6 2e-16
YEARMON 0.01281 0.00111 11.6 1.47e-26

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 356 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.274
F-statistic: 134 on 1 and 356 DF, p-value: 1.47e-26

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.

On Oct 6, 10:40*am, "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!

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




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

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.4841 * *2.2049 * -11.6 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01281 * *0.00111 * *11.6 * 1.47e-26

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 356 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.274
F-statistic: *134 on 1 and 356 DF, *p-value: 1.47e-26

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).

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.

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.

News flash - nobody gives a ****.

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.


On Oct 6, 10:59*am, 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.


He was talking about people who buy carbon credits, do
carbon swaps, mortgage swaps, and any other worthless paper.

"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.

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.



Why talk about minimum temperatures at all, the time when the
minimum for the day is higher than the normal for the day is almost nil,
so the only thing that should be called "warming" is the high for the day.


Normal or "typical" temperatures any place on Earth have such
a wide variation for each day of the year, any "warming" or cooling would
have to mean warmer than normal for most days, not just enough days to
affect the average for a day or a month.


AGW nuts can convince themselves of anything if they play with
the computer enough (and have a CS degree).

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