On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:



On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 130 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 last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.799 2.59
2002 14.70 0.709 2.30
1995 14.70 0.709 2.30
2004 14.66 0.669 2.17
2007 14.61 0.619 2.01
1999 14.60 0.609 1.98
2006 14.59 0.599 1.94
2005 14.56 0.569 1.85
2000 14.51 0.519 1.68
2003 14.50 0.509 1.65
1996 14.46 0.469 1.52
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
2001 14.41 0.419 1.36
MEAN 13.991 0.000 0.00
1951 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1886 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1929 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.411 -1.34
1911 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1907 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1888 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1905 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1887 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1891 13.49 -0.501 -1.63
1893 13.48 -0.511 -1.66
1917 13.47 -0.521 -1.69
1895 13.46 -0.531 -1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
-- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.

Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.

When are you going to learn it.


For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.

Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

What is your qualification?

Irrelevant Q.

Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:28 pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 130 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 last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.799 2.59
2002 14.70 0.709 2.30
1995 14.70 0.709 2.30
2004 14.66 0.669 2.17
2007 14.61 0.619 2.01
1999 14.60 0.609 1.98
2006 14.59 0.599 1.94
2005 14.56 0.569 1.85
2000 14.51 0.519 1.68
2003 14.50 0.509 1.65
1996 14.46 0.469 1.52
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
2001 14.41 0.419 1.36
MEAN 13.991 0.000 0.00
1951 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1886 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1929 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.411 -1.34
1911 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1907 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1888 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1905 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1887 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1891 13.49 -0.501 -1.63
1893 13.48 -0.511 -1.66
1917 13.47 -0.521 -1.69
1895 13.46 -0.531 -1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
-- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?
and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?
This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.
Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.
A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18
Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.
We call that Cherry-Picking.



I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.
For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?
You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

AGW Alarmists scream cherry-picking, every time that a verified fact
is pointed out, that is inconsistent with AGW.

Perhaps you would like me to include more data:

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991
February 2009 was cooler than February 1995
February 2009 was cooler than February 1996
February 2009 was cooler than February 1998
February 2009 was cooler than February 1999
February 2009 was cooler than February 2000
February 2009 was cooler than February 2002
February 2009 was cooler than February 2003
February 2009 was cooler than February 2004
February 2009 was cooler than February 2005
February 2009 was cooler than February 2006
February 2009 was cooler than February 2007

Of the 18 Februarys from 1991 to 2008, February 2009 was cooler than
12 out of the 18 Februarys.

Where is the global warming?

----------

You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

Please define exactly what you mean by climate science, otherwise you
are not justified in saying this.

I have many degrees in common sense, something that seems to be sadly
lacking on the AGW Alarmist side.

qqq, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)

Why don't you try to compute a 5 year running average rather than a
monthly average? Actually, the GISS people did this already for you:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Now look very carefully at that red line, it is rising since 1975. There
is no cooling since 1998. It is irrelevant to concentrate on individual
months in a weather model, we are talking about the climate, not the
weather.

Then you ask about qualifications: Q's qualifications are sufficient to
prove Mr. Right wrong again and again and again. The reason is simple
because Mr. Right is an unqualified liar. Anyone with a little bit of
knowledge can prove the Mr. Rights in this world to be dead wrong,
cherry picking is their technique, it is exposed, so the answer to all
mister Rights in this world is easy.

And this is why governments nowadays only listen to the IPCC. The time
of doubt about AGW is simply very far behind us.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

On Mar 14, 11:10*pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:28 pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data..giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 130 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 last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?
and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?
This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.
Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.
A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. *2009 - 1991 = 18
Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. *No warming
over 18 years.
We call that Cherry-Picking.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.
For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?
You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

AGW Alarmists scream cherry-picking, every time that a verified fact
is pointed out, that is inconsistent with AGW.

Perhaps you would like me to include more data:

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991
February 2009 was cooler than February 1995
February 2009 was cooler than February 1996
February 2009 was cooler than February 1998
February 2009 was cooler than February 1999
February 2009 was cooler than February 2000
February 2009 was cooler than February 2002
February 2009 was cooler than February 2003
February 2009 was cooler than February 2004
February 2009 was cooler than February 2005
February 2009 was cooler than February 2006
February 2009 was cooler than February 2007

Of the 18 Februarys from 1991 to 2008, February 2009 was cooler than
12 out of the 18 Februarys.

Where is the global warming?

----------

You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

Please define exactly what you mean by climate science, otherwise you
are not justified in saying this.

I have many degrees in common sense, something that seems to be sadly
lacking on the AGW Alarmist side.

qqq, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)

Why don't you try to compute a 5 year running average rather than a
monthly average? Actually, the GISS people did this already for you:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Now look very carefully at that red line, it is rising since 1975. There
is no cooling since 1998. It is irrelevant to concentrate on individual
months in a weather model, we are talking about the climate, not the
weather.

Then you ask about qualifications: Q's qualifications are sufficient to
prove Mr. Right wrong again and again and again. The reason is simple
because Mr. Right is an unqualified liar. Anyone with a little bit of
knowledge can prove the Mr. Rights in this world to be dead wrong,
cherry picking is their technique, it is exposed, so the answer to all
mister Rights in this world is easy.

And this is why governments nowadays only listen to the IPCC. The time
of doubt about AGW is simply very far behind us.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

Why don't you try to compute a 5 year running
average rather than a monthly average?

Shifting to another set of data, when the one that you are looking at
doesn't support your theory, is called cherry-picking (and you have
the nerve to accuse me of cherry-picking).

What you AGW Alarmists seem to be missing here, is that Roger Coppock
keeps posting this data as proof of AGW, and I am simply showing that
it proves that AGW is NOT happening. I don't choose the data, Roger
does.

Quick, Mr Right has found proof that AGW is not happening in the
February data, try to divert everyone to the 5 year running average
data. What a bunch of losers. Please explain the February data, or
admit that there is no AGW.

Q, you little weasel, you didn't answer any of my questions. I knew
that you would chicken out of it.

Throwing a temper tantrum, and screaming "Mr Right is wrong", doesn't
prove anything (except that you are a jerk).

You are happy to insult me, and cast aspersions on my qualifications,
but what have you told us about yourself. A big fat zero, (and that
appears to be your IQ).

I will repeat my question:
Q, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)

Do I sense perhaps a little bit of anxiety in the AGW Alarmist camp?

Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:10 pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:28 pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 130 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 last 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.799 2.59
2002 14.70 0.709 2.30
1995 14.70 0.709 2.30
2004 14.66 0.669 2.17
2007 14.61 0.619 2.01
1999 14.60 0.609 1.98
2006 14.59 0.599 1.94
2005 14.56 0.569 1.85
2000 14.51 0.519 1.68
2003 14.50 0.509 1.65
1996 14.46 0.469 1.52
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
2001 14.41 0.419 1.36
MEAN 13.991 0.000 0.00
1951 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1886 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1929 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.411 -1.34
1911 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1907 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1888 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1905 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1887 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1891 13.49 -0.501 -1.63
1893 13.48 -0.511 -1.66
1917 13.47 -0.521 -1.69
1895 13.46 -0.531 -1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
-- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?
and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?
This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.
Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.
A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18
Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.
We call that Cherry-Picking.
I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.
For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?
You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.
--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.
AGW Alarmists scream cherry-picking, every time that a verified fact
is pointed out, that is inconsistent with AGW.
Perhaps you would like me to include more data:
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991
February 2009 was cooler than February 1995
February 2009 was cooler than February 1996
February 2009 was cooler than February 1998
February 2009 was cooler than February 1999
February 2009 was cooler than February 2000
February 2009 was cooler than February 2002
February 2009 was cooler than February 2003
February 2009 was cooler than February 2004
February 2009 was cooler than February 2005
February 2009 was cooler than February 2006
February 2009 was cooler than February 2007
Of the 18 Februarys from 1991 to 2008, February 2009 was cooler than
12 out of the 18 Februarys.
Where is the global warming?
----------
You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.
Please define exactly what you mean by climate science, otherwise you
are not justified in saying this.
I have many degrees in common sense, something that seems to be sadly
lacking on the AGW Alarmist side.
qqq, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)
Why don't you try to compute a 5 year running average rather than a
monthly average? Actually, the GISS people did this already for you:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Now look very carefully at that red line, it is rising since 1975. There
is no cooling since 1998. It is irrelevant to concentrate on individual
months in a weather model, we are talking about the climate, not the
weather.

Then you ask about qualifications: Q's qualifications are sufficient to
prove Mr. Right wrong again and again and again. The reason is simple
because Mr. Right is an unqualified liar. Anyone with a little bit of
knowledge can prove the Mr. Rights in this world to be dead wrong,
cherry picking is their technique, it is exposed, so the answer to all
mister Rights in this world is easy.

And this is why governments nowadays only listen to the IPCC. The time
of doubt about AGW is simply very far behind us.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

Why don't you try to compute a 5 year running
average rather than a monthly average?

Shifting to another set of data, when the one that you are looking at
doesn't support your theory, is called cherry-picking (and you have
the nerve to accuse me of cherry-picking).

But you are cherry picking. If I look at the monthly GISS data, and if I
apply your technique, then you see a temperature decrease when monthly
averages are compared.

The reality is that the 5 year running mean goes up by about 0.1 C/10
years, if the noise around this data is like 0.1 C standard deviation
then you simply need 20 years or so to get a significant answer.

In other words, taking a 10 year difference is insignificant. Your
conclusion was insignificant and wrong.

And yes, I have the guts to tell you this straight in your authoritative
face.


What you AGW Alarmists seem to be missing here, is that Roger Coppock
keeps posting this data as proof of AGW, and I am simply showing that
it proves that AGW is NOT happening. I don't choose the data, Roger
does.

Then why do you refer to it?


Quick, Mr Right has found proof that AGW is not happening in the
February data, try to divert everyone to the 5 year running average
data. What a bunch of losers. Please explain the February data, or
admit that there is no AGW.

Mr Right is wrong again.


Q, you little weasel, you didn't answer any of my questions. I knew
that you would chicken out of it.

I did solve your problem, but you don't seem to be very happy about
being wrong all the time.


Throwing a temper tantrum, and screaming "Mr Right is wrong", doesn't
prove anything (except that you are a jerk).

AAAAH, name calling, funny.


You are happy to insult me, and cast aspersions on my qualifications,
but what have you told us about yourself. A big fat zero, (and that
appears to be your IQ).

Ohhhh, how angry is Mr Wrong today, sorry, Mr. Right, clueless.


I will repeat my question:
Q, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)

Do I sense perhaps a little bit of anxiety in the AGW Alarmist camp?

Then let me repeat:

Q's qualifications are sufficient to prove Mr. Right wrong again and
again and again. The reason is simple because Mr. Right is an
unqualified liar. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge can prove the
Mr. Rights in this world to be dead wrong, cherry picking is their
technique, it is exposed, so the answer to all mister Rights in this
world is easy. And this is why governments nowadays only listen to the
IPCC. The time of doubt about AGW is simply very far behind us.

Maybe Mr. Wrong, sorry, Mr. Right, needs a new pair of glasses and an
new hearing aid?

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

On Mar 14, 10:51*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:





On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:

On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. *2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. *No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.

Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.

When are you going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.

Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

What is your qualification?

Irrelevant Q.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, ...

JohnM, please do not assume that other people act in the same way that
you do. Liars often suspect that other people are lying to them.

... as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level)
falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

JohnM, congratulations on being able to look up some big words in the
dictionary. A word of advice, it pays to spell these words correctly
and consistently, because otherwise people will think that you don't
really know what they mean.

You have unfortunately (for you) chosen a topic which I have some
experience in.

A lot of my statistical training is in econometrics, and econometrics
frequently deals with data exhibiting heteroskedasticity.

You will (of course) realise that heteroskedasticity does not cause
ordinary least squares coefficient estimates to be biased.

However, the variance (and therefore the standard errors) of the
coefficients tends to be underestimated. This inflates t-scores, and
sometimes makes insignificant variables appear to be statistically
significant.

----------

But it won't of course as I've already done it and checked.

Well JohnM, since you claim that you have already done this analysis,
I will allow you to post your results, and bask in the glory that
comes from proving that you have spoken the truth.

What's that JohnM. You have misplaced the results? Now that is a
shame. It looks like you are going to have to do it again, otherwise
everyone will think that you are lying.

February was also a warm month according the satellite observations:
UAH: rank 8
RSS: rank 9

Also according to HadCRUT a warm month, rank 12 since 1850

On Mar 14, 7:59*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:51*pm, JohnM wrote:



On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:

On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. *2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. *No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.

Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.

When are you going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.

Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

What is your qualification?

Irrelevant Q.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, ...

JohnM, please do not assume that other people act in the same way that
you do. Liars often suspect that other people are lying to them.

... as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level)
falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

JohnM, congratulations on being able to look up some big words in the
dictionary. A word of advice, it pays to spell these words correctly
and consistently, because otherwise people will think that you don't
really know what they mean.

You have unfortunately (for you) chosen a topic which I have some
experience in.

A lot of my statistical training is in econometrics, and econometrics
frequently deals with data exhibiting heteroskedasticity.

You will (of course) realise that heteroskedasticity does not cause
ordinary least squares coefficient estimates to be biased.

However, the variance (and therefore the standard errors) of the
coefficients tends to be underestimated. This inflates t-scores, and
sometimes makes insignificant variables appear to be statistically
significant.

----------

But it won't of course as I've already done it and checked.

Well JohnM, since you claim that you have already done this analysis,
I will allow you to post your results, and bask in the glory that
comes from proving that you have spoken the truth.

What's that JohnM. You have misplaced the results? Now that is a
shame. It looks like you are going to have to do it again, otherwise
everyone will think that you are lying.

On Mar 14, 12:59 pm, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:51 pm, JohnM wrote:



On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:

On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.

Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.

When are you going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.

Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

What is your qualification?

Irrelevant Q.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, ...

JohnM, please do not assume that other people act in the same way that
you do. Liars often suspect that other people are lying to them.

Would that be why you expend so many words telling us how great you
are at doing science, yet are unable to provide a reference to a
single publication bearing your name. Not one!!

... as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level)
falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

JohnM, congratulations on being able to look up some big words in the
dictionary. A word of advice, it pays to spell these words correctly

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. So why don't you try it yourself?
http://isi.cbs.nl/glossary/term2929.htm

and consistently

Well as I only spelled it once, correctly, and you spelled it twice,
improperly, I am not sure where that ends up in the consistency
stakes, do you?

because otherwise people will think that you don't
really know what they mean.

You have unfortunately (for you) chosen a topic which I have some
experience in.

A lot of my statistical training is in econometrics, and econometrics
frequently deals with data exhibiting heteroskedasticity.

It probably deals with heteroscedasticity as well.

You will (of course) realise that heteroskedasticity does not cause
ordinary least squares coefficient estimates to be biased.

It makes proper assessment of their significance level somewhat vague
to downright impossible, however. And without a significance level,
such derived statistics are worthless.

However, the variance (and therefore the standard errors) of the
coefficients tends to be underestimated. This inflates t-scores, and
sometimes makes insignificant variables appear to be statistically
significant.

Gosh. You've found something written in some online textbook. Pity you
can't comprehend the real meaning of what you have just cut and
pasted.
----------

But it won't of course as I've already done it and checked.

Well JohnM, since you claim that you have already done this analysis,
I will allow you to post your results, and bask in the glory that
comes from proving that you have spoken the truth.

I've already posted the result. I compared the first five years of the
current century withe the second five. The actual value of the
statistic I computed was 15.5, leading to a t value nowhere close to
significance. Perhaps you would care to fill out the blanks I have
deliberately left, including naming the distribution free test
applied.
Just to show that you too are speaking the truth, as I feel sure you
aresarcasm
I conclude that fitting a Type II regression would be a fool's errand.
There is no evidence for a significant change in any direction for
2000 - 2009 when using February global temperatures

What's that JohnM. You have misplaced the results? Now that is a
shame. It looks like you are going to have to do it again, otherwise
everyone will think that you are lying.

What everyone doubtless thinks is what a complete pillock you are.

qqq wrote:

Now look very carefully at that red line, it is rising since 1975.
There is no cooling since 1998. It is irrelevant to concentrate on
individual months in a weather model,

If that is true, why must we always be bored by Coopick's endless, 'Month
such-and-such was the xth hottest on record" posts. I agree completely.
Monthly averages are irrelevent. February isn't climate.

On Mar 16, 8:36 pm, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:
qqq wrote:

Now look very carefully at that red line, it is rising since 1975.
There is no cooling since 1998. It is irrelevant to concentrate on
individual months in a weather model,

If that is true, why must we always be bored by Coopick's endless, 'Month
such-and-such was the xth hottest on record" posts. I agree completely.
Monthly averages are irrelevent. February isn't climate.

The problem would seem to arise from the interminable cyle of "It's
hot", "No, it's cold", "No, it's hot", ... everytime a heatwave or a
freeze strikes somewhere in the world.