On Jan 14, 5:25*pm, z wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:40*pm, Mr Right wrote:

On Jan 14, 4:35*pm, "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in ...
2008 was 9th warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Well the global data bases of NOAA GHCN, NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT3v are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment and black box and man made adjustments designed to maximize warming (Steve McIntyre found more urban areas had their temperatures adjusted up then down).

James, I agree about the data contamination, but even that does not
hide the fact that temperatures are dropping.

well, you two work out exactly what it is you agree about that
disproves AGW and get back to us. feel free to check as many below
which you feel makes a coherent pictu
1) the earth never was warming
2) it was warming but now it's cooling
3) it's warming but not very much
4) it's warming but it's not manmade
5) it's warming but so is mars
6) it's cosmic rays
7) it's the sun
8) it's the sun affecting cosmic rays
9) the warming oceans are warming the planet and releasing CO2
10) the oceans are cooling
11) there isn't enough CO2 to make a difference
12) there is already enough CO2 to absorb all the IR
13) plants require CO2
14) scientists are just making it up to get research money
15) we need more research

Most of the above.

On Jan 14, 4:49*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Mr Right wrote:





On Jan 14, 4:26*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

2008 was 9th warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

I wonder, "During this year, how many times will the fossil
fools tell their lie about global warming ending?" *Meanwhile,
the global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean yearly temperature over the last 129 years is 13.978 C.
The Variance is 0.06000.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2450.

These yearly data are graphed at:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

Rxy 0.8614 * Rxy^2 0.7419
TEMP = 13.61008 + (0.005666 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 365.101552
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 (38 nines), which is darn
close to 100%!

The year 2008
is linearly projected to be 14.341,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.44. *- above the projection
The sum of the absolute errors is 12.9797

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.614377 * e^(.0004036 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 12.9176

* * *Rank of the Years
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2005 * 14.62 * * 0.642 * * 2.62
2007 * 14.57 * * 0.592 * * 2.42
1998 * 14.57 * * 0.592 * * 2.42
2002 * 14.56 * * 0.582 * * 2.37
2006 * 14.55 * * 0.572 * * 2.33
2003 * 14.55 * * 0.572 * * 2.33
2004 * 14.48 * * 0.502 * * 2.05
2001 * 14.48 * * 0.502 * * 2.05
2008 * 14.44 * * 0.462 * * 1.88 --
1997 * 14.40 * * 0.422 * * 1.72
1995 * 14.38 * * 0.402 * * 1.64
1990 * 14.38 * * 0.402 * * 1.64
1991 * 14.35 * * 0.372 * * 1.52
MEAN * 13.978 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1913 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1893 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1892 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1910 * 13.67 * *-0.308 * *-1.26
1894 * 13.67 * *-0.308 * *-1.26
1912 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1911 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1908 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1904 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1909 * 13.65 * *-0.328 * *-1.34
1887 * 13.65 * *-0.328 * *-1.34
1890 * 13.63 * *-0.348 * *-1.42
1907 * 13.61 * *-0.368 * *-1.50
1917 * 13.60 * *-0.378 * *-1.54

The most recent 178 continuous months, or 14 years and 10 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1548 months of data on this data set:
* -- 669 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 178 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. *A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

The reason that it was the 9th warmest, is because we have passed the
peak (1998), and are now going downhill.

In these data, the slope of the years 1998 to 2008
is 1.06 K per century of warming. *(With typical too
small sample insignificance: R^2 = 0.13 and P-value
= 0.274. *You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.



Temperatures normally drop as you enter an ice age.

We are NOT entering an ice age anytime soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Roger, when I drive over a hill, I don't pretend that I am still going
uphill for the next 30 miles, until my height matches some historical
value (e.g. the height I was at 100 miles ago).

Your three decades to establish a trend, GUARANTEES that you are WRONG
for 30 years after conditions change.

Where is your proof that we will not enter an ice age soon. I read
somewhere recently that there was a 50:50 chance of the earth entering
an ice age within the next 5 years. What about the sunspots (hint - no
we don't want to see your bogus correlation), and the Maunder Minimum.

Never-the-less, an ice-age is something to consider.

With all the glaciers melting world-wide, one must keep Causality in mind.

For every action in the universe there is an equal or opposite reaction.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Jan 14, 4:50*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
Yet you have no better data to offer.
So, let's reason on data and ignore rumor.

I have often looked at the data on john dailys website "what the
stations say". I checked the UK data against that held by the Met
office (this is all raw data by the way) and it it was the same, so I
am reasonably confident that all the data is genuine raw station data.

I dont know if you have looked at it, perhaps you are scared to do so,
but it shows a very mixed picture.

A lot of the northern hemisphere was a fair bit warmer in the 30s and
a lot of the southern hemisphere has cooled since then.

In between there is a lot of variability, missing periods, and so on.
What one is left with though is the impression that there is just
regional variability and that such a thing as a 'global average' is
misleading.

(It would be like talking about the 'average recklesness of drivers'
when only 10% exceeded the speed limit)

On Jan 14, 4:30 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:50 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Yet you have no better data to offer.
So, let's reason on data and ignore rumor.

I have often looked at the data on john dailys website "what the
stations say". I checked the UK data against that held by the Met
office (this is all raw data by the way) and it it was the same, so I
am reasonably confident that all the data is genuine raw station data.

I dont know if you have looked at it, perhaps you are scared to do so,
but it shows a very mixed picture.

A lot of the northern hemisphere was a fair bit warmer in the 30s and
a lot of the southern hemisphere has cooled since then.

The northern hemisphere was "a fair bit warmer " than what, or where?
Your statement is logically intractable.

In between there is a lot of variability, missing periods, and so on.
What one is left with though is the impression that there is just
regional variability and that such a thing as a 'global average' is
misleading.

So what would *you* substitute as a measure of climate change?

(It would be like talking about the 'average recklesness of drivers'
when only 10% exceeded the speed limit)

If keeping the speed limit implies zero on the scale of recklessness,
then any speeding driver will produce a positive value for the
measure. The word average is meaningless in the context you have
placed it.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:08:03 -0800, Mr Right wrote:

Where is your proof that we will not enter an ice age soon. I read
somewhere recently that there was a 50:50 chance of the earth entering
an ice age within the next 5 years. What about the sunspots (hint - no
we don't want to see your bogus correlation), and the Maunder Minimum.

I think we will not have real ice ages as long as there is a land bridge
between North and South America, and no land bridge between Scotland and
Canada (Thule land bridge).

What we are probably entering now would be a 'little ice age' caused by a
couple of very low solar cycles coming. My favourite prediction on the
next solar cycles is on http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html #27
(Medium- and longterm periodicities in C14 applied on Wolfnumber). It goes
back further than any of the other predictions. This one is good too:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2b84a68a3d06c1

I think Fourier spectra is the right approach for the time being. Our data
on physical behaviour inside the sun is not going back far enough yet to
make a good prediction. And the cycles in solar activity are very real.

Joern

On Jan 13, 10:08*pm, Mr Right wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:49*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]
The reason that it was the 9th warmest, is because we have passed the
peak (1998), and are now going downhill.

In these data, the slope of the years 1998 to 2008
is 1.06 K per century of warming. *(With typical too
small sample insignificance: R^2 = 0.13 and P-value
= 0.274. *You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Temperatures normally drop as you enter an ice age.

We are NOT entering an ice age anytime soon.


You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Roger, when I drive over a hill, . . .

WHAT A FREAK SHOW!

A positive slope of 1.06K per century is not going
OVER a hill. It is going UP a hill.

On Jan 14, 11:50*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jan 13, 10:08*pm, Mr Right wrote:





On Jan 14, 4:49*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]
The reason that it was the 9th warmest, is because we have passed the
peak (1998), and are now going downhill.

In these data, the slope of the years 1998 to 2008
is 1.06 K per century of warming. *(With typical too
small sample insignificance: R^2 = 0.13 and P-value
= 0.274. *You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Temperatures normally drop as you enter an ice age.

We are NOT entering an ice age anytime soon.

You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Roger, when I drive over a hill, *. . .

WHAT A FREAK SHOW!

A positive slope of 1.06K per century is not going
OVER a hill. *It is going UP a hill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Roger, I can see that you confuse the regression line, and its slope,
with reality. The line and its slope are a mathematical construct,
effectively an average. Reality is the data points, and the
instantaneous slope (assuming that the data points are measured
correctly, no Hansen manipulations).

That is why I made the comment "Roger, when I drive over a hill, I
don't pretend that I am still going uphill for the next 30
miles, ...". This is a reference to you demanding 30 years of data for
a climate trend. Doing this means that you will be wrong for 30 years
before you acknowledge a change.

It is very obvious in the case of driving, whether you are going up or
down, if you concentrate on what is happening now (or over a short
interval). If you use averages, then you introduce a lag or delay. The
calculation says that you are still going up, even after you have
started to go down, because it is an average.

You are so focused on the average slope of a theoretic linear model
(which is probably not even an appropriate model), that you can not
see reality. Open your eyes Roger, and see how you are deluding
yourself.

On Jan 14, 1:08*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:49*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:



On Jan 13, 7:34*pm, Mr Right wrote:

On Jan 14, 4:26*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

2008 was 9th warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

I wonder, "During this year, how many times will the fossil
fools tell their lie about global warming ending?" *Meanwhile,
the global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data..giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean yearly temperature over the last 129 years is 13.978 C.
The Variance is 0.06000.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2450.

These yearly data are graphed at:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

Rxy 0.8614 * Rxy^2 0.7419
TEMP = 13.61008 + (0.005666 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 365.101552
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 (38 nines), which is darn
close to 100%!

The year 2008
is linearly projected to be 14.341,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.44. *- above the projection
The sum of the absolute errors is 12.9797

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.614377 * e^(.0004036 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 12.9176

* * *Rank of the Years
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2005 * 14.62 * * 0.642 * * 2.62
2007 * 14.57 * * 0.592 * * 2.42
1998 * 14.57 * * 0.592 * * 2.42
2002 * 14.56 * * 0.582 * * 2.37
2006 * 14.55 * * 0.572 * * 2.33
2003 * 14.55 * * 0.572 * * 2.33
2004 * 14.48 * * 0.502 * * 2.05
2001 * 14.48 * * 0.502 * * 2.05
2008 * 14.44 * * 0.462 * * 1.88 --
1997 * 14.40 * * 0.422 * * 1.72
1995 * 14.38 * * 0.402 * * 1.64
1990 * 14.38 * * 0.402 * * 1.64
1991 * 14.35 * * 0.372 * * 1.52
MEAN * 13.978 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1913 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1893 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1892 * 13.68 * *-0.298 * *-1.22
1910 * 13.67 * *-0.308 * *-1.26
1894 * 13.67 * *-0.308 * *-1.26
1912 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1911 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1908 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1904 * 13.66 * *-0.318 * *-1.30
1909 * 13.65 * *-0.328 * *-1.34
1887 * 13.65 * *-0.328 * *-1.34
1890 * 13.63 * *-0.348 * *-1.42
1907 * 13.61 * *-0.368 * *-1.50
1917 * 13.60 * *-0.378 * *-1.54

The most recent 178 continuous months, or 14 years and 10 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1548 months of data on this data set:
* -- 669 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 178 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. *A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

The reason that it was the 9th warmest, is because we have passed the
peak (1998), and are now going downhill.

In these data, the slope of the years 1998 to 2008
is 1.06 K per century of warming. *(With typical too
small sample insignificance: R^2 = 0.13 and P-value
= 0.274. *You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Temperatures normally drop as you enter an ice age.

We are NOT entering an ice age anytime soon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You need about three decades to establish
a climate trend.) So much for going downhill.

Roger, when I drive over a hill, I don't pretend that I am still going
uphill for the next 30 miles, until my height matches some historical
value (e.g. the height I was at 100 miles ago).

Your three decades to establish a trend, GUARANTEES that you are WRONG
for 30 years after conditions change.

Where is your proof that we will not enter an ice age soon.

Where's your proof an asteroid won't hit the earth soon? Where's your
proof the Yellowstone supervolcano won't erupt soon? Where's your
proof the Borg won't assimilate us soon?

I read
somewhere recently that there was a 50:50 chance of the earth entering
an ice age within the next 5 years. What about the sunspots (hint - no
we don't want to see your bogus correlation), and the Maunder Minimum.

Roger Coppock wrote in news:a52b2c5c-4ffc-47af-ab69-
:

2008 was 9th warmest on NASA's 129-year record.


Amazing. I never thought NASA was around in 1879.