On 14/01/09 4:34, in article
, "Mr
Right" wrote:

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

2005 was the warmest year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.pdf

On a monthly basis the beginning of 2006 was higher
than the high point in 1998.

Why are people obsessed with 1998?

On 14/01/09 4:35, in article ,
"James" wrote:

Steve McIntyre

Is he a member of the National Academy of Sciences?

What post does he hold anywhere?

On Jan 14, 12:39*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Jan 14, 5:11*pm, z wrote:

On Jan 13, 10:35*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).

and these have all ceased to bias the record now, because......
because..... because.... because...... because..... because....
because...... because..... because.... because...... because.....
because.... because...... because..... because.... gimme a
minute...... because...... because..... because.... because......
because..... because.... because...... because..... because....

Ha, you couldn't come up with a reason !!!

so the record continues to show warming because of the continuing
bias? i thought you just said it was showing cooling now. gee. i just
can't follow this.

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.

A completely insane lie. lol

Mr Right wrote:
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.

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

k00k-a-d00dle-d00000!

Earl Evleth wrote:
On 14/01/09 4:34, in article
, "Mr
Right" wrote:

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

2005 was the warmest year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.pdf

On a monthly basis the beginning of 2006 was higher
than the high point in 1998.

Why are people obsessed with 1998?

It was an El Nino year, so the denialists all cherry-pick it.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Fixed the title.

On Jan 15, 5:25*am, Lloyd wrote:
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/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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's your proof an asteroid won't hit the earth soon?

I do not have proof that an asteroid won't hit the earth soon (and
have never claimed that I did). In fact, I believe that eventually an
asteroid WILL hit the earth. The probability of it happening in my
lifetime is low, and I am not intending to waste my time worrying
about it. Do YOU think that we should introduce an "asteroid
tax" (like a "carbon tax") and give all the money to the IPCC so that
they can protect us?

Where's your proof the Yellowstone supervolcano won't erupt soon?

I do not have proof that the Yellowstone supervolcano won't erupt soon
(and have never claimed that I did). I don't know much about the
Yellowstone supervolcano, but it is possible that it will erupt at
some time. The probability of it happening in my lifetime or affecting
me badly is low, and I am not intending to waste my time worrying
about it. Do YOU think that we should introduce a "Yellowstone
supervolcano tax" (like a "carbon tax") and give all the money to the
IPCC so that they can protect us?

Where's your proof the Borg won't assimilate us soon?

I currently have no evidence that the Borg exist in reality. If they
do exist, then I have no proof that they won't assimilate us (and have
never claimed that I did). If assimilation happened, then it might
raise the IQ of AGWers above a critical threshold, and they could stop
worrying about non-existant threats from a relatively benign gas.
Besides, Borgs like it a little warmer than it is at the moment. Relax
Lloyd, you will enjoy the experience. Once you have been assimilated,
it is like a great big leftist group hug.

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

On Jan 14, 3:41*pm, Mr Right wrote:
On Jan 15, 5:25*am, Lloyd wrote:







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/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.

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..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's your proof an asteroid won't hit the earth soon?

I do not have proof that an asteroid won't hit the earth soon (and
have never claimed that I did). In fact, I believe that eventually an
asteroid WILL hit the earth. The probability of it happening in my
lifetime is low, and I am not intending to waste my time worrying
about it. Do YOU think that we should introduce an "asteroid
tax" (like a "carbon tax") and give all the money to the IPCC so that
they can protect us?

Where's your proof the Yellowstone supervolcano won't erupt soon?

I do not have proof that the Yellowstone supervolcano won't erupt soon
(and have never claimed that I did). I don't know much about the
Yellowstone supervolcano, but it is possible that it will erupt at
some time. The probability of it happening in my lifetime or affecting
me badly is low, and I am not intending to waste my time worrying
about it. Do YOU think that we should introduce a "Yellowstone
supervolcano tax" (like a "carbon tax") and give all the money to the
IPCC so that they can protect us?

*Where's your proof the Borg won't assimilate us soon?

I currently have no evidence that the Borg exist in reality. If they
do exist, then I have no proof that they won't assimilate us (and have
never claimed that I did). If assimilation happened, then it might
raise the IQ of AGWers above a critical threshold, and they could stop
worrying about non-existant threats from a relatively benign gas.
Besides, Borgs like it a little warmer than it is at the moment. Relax
Lloyd, you will enjoy the experience. Once you have been assimilated,
it is like a great big leftist group hug.

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

You provide you proof the above 3 will not occur soon first. Then
maybe you'll appreciate how you cannot prove something will not happen.

On Jan 15, 7:32*am, z wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:39*am, Mr Right wrote:





On Jan 14, 5:11*pm, z wrote:

On Jan 13, 10:35*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).

and these have all ceased to bias the record now, because......
because..... because.... because...... because..... because....
because...... because..... because.... because...... because.....
because.... because...... because..... because.... gimme a
minute...... because...... because..... because.... because......
because..... because.... because...... because..... because....

Ha, you couldn't come up with a reason !!!

so the record continues to show warming because of the continuing
bias? i thought you just said it was showing cooling now. gee. i just
can't follow this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You obviously didn't understand the point of my post.

The averaged data (the regression line and its slope), continue to
show warming, because averaging causes a lag or delay. Like Roger,
they will still be showing/claiming warming even after years of ice
age.

Reality (the current data points and instantaneous slope), show
cooling.

Would you like a numerical example to illustrate this point?