|
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
On Mar 29, 9:29*pm, qqq wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote: Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record On Mar 28, 4:05 pm, Mr Right wrote: [ . . . ] February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February 1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical 30 years to establish a climate trend. Nope! *Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he obviously cherry picks his dates. *These data clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 28 years. *Please note the positive 3.1K per century warming in the correlation and regression analysis below. Rxy 0.642605 * Rxy^2 0.412941 TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981)) Degrees of Freedom = 26 * * * * F = 18.288595 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998 But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935. Mr. Right is wrong again! Rxy 0.540833 * Rxy^2 0.2925 TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934)) Degrees of Freedom = 73 * * * * F = 30.180232 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453 Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+ confidence of non-zero correlation. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry- picking. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? -----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!----- -----A class at a local junior college would help him.----- I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong. Q -- The only thing to fear is AGW Alarmist stupidity. I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong. I would like to propose a new rule, called Q's rule. Q's rule says, when Q doesn't have any scientific rebuttal, he will make a trivia. Trivia are trivial, meaningless, and take peoples attention away from the fact that Q has nothing intelligent to say. |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
On Mar 29, 2:56*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record On Mar 28, 4:05*pm, Mr Right wrote: [ . . . ] February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February 1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical 30 years to establish a climate trend. Nope! *Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he obviously cherry picks his dates. *These data clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 28 years. *Please note the positive 3.1K per century warming in the correlation and regression analysis below. Rxy 0.642605 * Rxy^2 0.412941 TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981)) Degrees of Freedom = 26 * * * * F = 18.288595 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998 But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935. Mr. Right is wrong again! Rxy 0.540833 * Rxy^2 0.2925 TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934)) Degrees of Freedom = 73 * * * * F = 30.180232 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453 Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+ confidence of non-zero correlation. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry- picking. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? -----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!----- -----A class at a local junior college would help him.----- This has got nothing to do with cherry-picking. This has got to do with precise mathematical definitions. I was always taught that warming was defined as an increase in the temperature. What we have here is a decrease, or no change in the temperature. Have AGW Alarmists now redefined warming, to be either an increase, or a decrease, or no change, in the temperature. When there is no significant increase in the average global February temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, between February 1935, and February 2009, then AGW Alarmists need to explain how this is consistent with warming. Is natural temperature variation bigger than the amount of warming from AGW? Accusing me of being wrong, without explaining the facts, proves that you have no scientific rebuttal. Until you provide a scientific rebuttal, we will assume no change in temperature over the last 74 years. |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest Februaryon NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 29, 2:56 pm, Roger Coppock wrote: Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record On Mar 28, 4:05 pm, Mr Right wrote: [ . . . ] February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February 1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical 30 years to establish a climate trend. Nope! Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he obviously cherry picks his dates. These data clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 28 years. Please note the positive 3.1K per century warming in the correlation and regression analysis below. Rxy 0.642605 Rxy^2 0.412941 TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981)) Degrees of Freedom = 26 F = 18.288595 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998 But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935. Mr. Right is wrong again! Rxy 0.540833 Rxy^2 0.2925 TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934)) Degrees of Freedom = 73 F = 30.180232 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453 Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+ confidence of non-zero correlation. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry- picking. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? -----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!----- -----A class at a local junior college would help him.----- This has got nothing to do with cherry-picking. This has got to do with precise mathematical definitions. I was always taught that warming was defined as an increase in the temperature. What we have here is a decrease, or no change in the temperature. Have AGW Alarmists now redefined warming, to be either an increase, or a decrease, or no change, in the temperature. When there is no significant increase in the average global February temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, between February 1935, and February 2009, then AGW Alarmists need to explain how this is consistent with warming. Is natural temperature variation bigger than the amount of warming from AGW? Accusing me of being wrong, without explaining the facts, proves that you have no scientific rebuttal. Until you provide a scientific rebuttal, we will assume no change in temperature over the last 74 years. Mr. Right is a copycat liar. Q -- The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity. |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
Mr. Wrong:
Your local junior college probably offers an introductory statistics course, take it. They will certainly explain to you that just examining end points can not establish a trend. On Mar 29, 3:26*am, Mr Right wrote: On Mar 29, 2:56*pm, Roger Coppock wrote: Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record On Mar 28, 4:05*pm, Mr Right wrote: [ . . . ] February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February 1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical 30 years to establish a climate trend. Nope! *Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he obviously cherry picks his dates. *These data clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 28 years. *Please note the positive 3.1K per century warming in the correlation and regression analysis below. Rxy 0.642605 * Rxy^2 0.412941 TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981)) Degrees of Freedom = 26 * * * * F = 18.288595 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998 But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935. Mr. Right is wrong again! Rxy 0.540833 * Rxy^2 0.2925 TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934)) Degrees of Freedom = 73 * * * * F = 30.180232 Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453 Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+ confidence of non-zero correlation. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry- picking. Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern Hemisphere, Mr. Right? -----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!----- -----A class at a local junior college would help him.----- This has got nothing to do with cherry-picking. This has got to do with precise mathematical definitions. YES, and those precise mathematical definitions are for correlation and linear regression. Both are well defined proven mathematical algorithms. Your local junior college probably offers an introductory statistics course, take it. They will certainly explain to you that just examining end points can not establish a trend. I was always taught that warming was defined as an increase in the temperature. YES, and in both of your cherry picked cases precisely defined mathematical algorithms, correlation and linear regression, show significant warming. These trump your haphazard pseudo-scientific rain dances. Your local junior college probably offers an introductory statistics course, take it. They will certainly explain to you that just examining end points can not establish a trend. What we have here is a decrease, or no change in the temperature. NO, WE MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT! Your local junior college probably offers an introductory statistics course, take it. They will certainly explain to you that just examining end points can not establish a trend. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 29, 2:32*am, qqq wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote: On Mar 28, 5:16 pm, Catoni wrote: [ . . . ] * Second, * The last 130 years??? *That is a very very short time span when you are discussing Paleoclimatology. But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology. You just tried to change the subject, again. That is a deniers trick, insert some illogical statements in the discussion in the hope that the original poster gets confused. This 'speedy change of the topic when you're losing' tactic wasn't developed by AGW deniers; creationists have used it for centuries, if not millennia. I've encountered it in discussions with medical quacks too. Catoni just conceded me my debate point when he attempted to the topic. In some threads on this newsgroup, the fossil fools look like they have a severe case of attention deficit disorder. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 28, 7:05*pm, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:00*am, Roger Coppock wrote: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere 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 hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt They represent the results of tens of millions of readings taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern Hemisphere over the last 130 years. *Yes, the data are corrected for the urban heat island effect. The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 14.000 C. The Variance is 0.32528. The Standard Deviation is 0.5703. Rxy 0.7245 * Rxy^2 0.5249 TEMP = 13.278401 + (0.011011 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 141.411139 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%! The month of February in the year 2009, is linearly projected to be 14.710, * * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.74. The sum of the absolute errors is 40.92161 Equal weight exponential least squares fit: TEMP = 13.296692 * e^(.0007858 * (YEAR-1879)) The sum of the absolute errors is 40.73959 *Rank of the months of February Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score 1995 * 15.37 * * 1.370 * * 2.40 1998 * 15.29 * * 1.290 * * 2.26 2002 * 15.27 * * 1.270 * * 2.23 2000 * 15.17 * * 1.170 * * 2.05 2007 * 15.16 * * 1.160 * * 2.03 1999 * 15.14 * * 1.140 * * 2.00 2006 * 15.10 * * 1.100 * * 1.93 2004 * 15.07 * * 1.070 * * 1.88 2005 * 14.83 * * 0.830 * * 1.46 1981 * 14.79 * * 0.790 * * 1.39 1997 * 14.76 * * 0.760 * * 1.33 2009 * 14.74 * * 0.740 * * 1.30 -- 1935 * 14.72 * * 0.720 * * 1.26 2003 * 14.69 * * 0.690 * * 1.21 MEAN * 14.000 * *0.000 * * 0.00 1904 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19 1894 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19 1906 * 13.25 * *-0.750 * *-1.31 1929 * 13.24 * *-0.760 * *-1.33 1917 * 13.19 * *-0.810 * *-1.42 1886 * 13.17 * *-0.830 * *-1.45 1891 * 13.16 * *-0.840 * *-1.47 1887 * 13.15 * *-0.850 * *-1.49 1888 * 13.13 * *-0.870 * *-1.52 1907 * 13.10 * *-0.900 * *-1.58 1899 * 13.06 * *-0.940 * *-1.65 1883 * 13.05 * *-0.950 * *-1.67 1905 * 12.91 * *-1.090 * *-1.91 1893 * 12.73 * *-1.270 * *-2.23 1895 * 12.58 * *-1.420 * *-2.49 The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months, on this NH.Ts.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: * -- 790 of them are at or above the norm. * -- 760 of them are below the norm. This run of 149 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 1995 * 15.37 * * 1.370 * * 2.40 1998 * 15.29 * * 1.290 * * 2.26 2002 * 15.27 * * 1.270 * * 2.23 2000 * 15.17 * * 1.170 * * 2.05 2007 * 15.16 * * 1.160 * * 2.03 1999 * 15.14 * * 1.140 * * 2.00 2006 * 15.10 * * 1.100 * * 1.93 2004 * 15.07 * * 1.070 * * 1.88 2005 * 14.83 * * 0.830 * * 1.46 1981 * 14.79 * * 0.790 * * 1.39 ------------- 1981 1997 * 14.76 * * 0.760 * * 1.33 2009 * 14.74 * * 0.740 * * 1.30 ------------- 2009 1935 * 14.72 * * 0.720 * * 1.26 ------------- 1935 2003 * 14.69 * * 0.690 * * 1.21 MEAN * 14.000 * *0.000 * * 0.00 February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February 1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical 30 years to establish a climate trend. But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935. Could someone provide one of those famous line graphs on this subject? Another hockey stick, maybe? Roger has essentially acknowledged in his original post that February 2009 ISN'T the hottest February on record in the northern hemisphere, but only the 14th hottest. So Roger's post isn't talking about peak temperatures -- about points on the chart that may prove to be outliers vis a vis the general trend. Roger is implicitly making an argument about the general trend, and indicating that the February 2009 data fits into that trend. Your point about hotter February temperatures occurring in 1981 and in 1935 may be relevant if you can show that Roger's trend is invalid. If you're just showing that yep, there was an amazing spike in the temperature in 1935 and then again in 1981, but you can't link this up with a trend, then you haven't disproved Roger's point. Which you must be intelligent enough to understand, Mr. Right. The fact that you don't even mention this in your post suggests that you're just engaging in cheap, bogus rhetoric here. Your larger case against AGW may or may not be valid; the fact that you're cheerfully trying to hornswoggle everyone in this post doesn't prove that your side is wrong. But you ARE trying to hornswoggle everyone with this comment about possible outlier temperatures in 1981 and 1935. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 28, 8:16*pm, Catoni wrote:
Hmmm 12th warmest in the last 130 years? *Shoul I be worried? * *Nope ! Not at all. * *Two things: * *First, assuming that their info is correct, and I have some doubt, 12th warmest is not saying much. * Second, * The last 130 years??? *That is a very very short time span when you are discussing Paleoclimatology. It's like yesterday. Or not even that much. More like a few hours ago. Yeah. That's obviously one of the main problems with the case for AGW as well as the case against it. It's hard to make any kind of argument based on such a small data sample. This is one of the reasons that the dreaded general circulation models are important to climate research, and one reason why some AGW researchers talk about "global warming footprints.' |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 28, 11:03*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:16*pm, Catoni wrote: [ . . . ] * Second, * The last 130 years??? *That is a very very short time span when you are discussing Paleoclimatology. But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology. You just tried to change the subject, again. It's like yesterday. Or not even that much. More like a few hours ago. Yet, you fossil fools conclude that there is a current cooling trend from less than a decade of data. *So then, 8 years is enough for a fossil fool to claim a cooling trend, but 130 years is not enough for mainstream science to conclude a warming trend. *LOL! BINGO! Good post, Roger. |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
Both of the posts below constitute CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
Can we get back to debating Roger's post and its implications or non- implications for the world, please? I don't think the IPCC or even the Heartland Institute is going to concern itself much with Q's argument that "Mr. Right is always wrong," nor with Mr. Right's counter claim that "Q has nothing intelligent to say." Neither James Hansen, nor Fred Singer, nor John Christy, nor the famous Al Gore is going to publish any books on "Q versus Mr Right," either. Do you guys want to get back to debating / discussing "global warming" ? ----------------------------- On Mar 29, 6:07*am, Mr Right wrote: Q wrote: I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong. Mr. Right wrote: I would like to propose a new rule, called Q's rule. Q's rule says, when Q doesn't have any scientific rebuttal, he will make a trivia. Trivia are trivial, meaningless, and take peoples attention away from the fact that Q has nothing intelligent to say.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology.
You just tried to change the subject, again. That is a deniers trick, insert some illogical statements in the discussion in the hope that the original poster gets confused. This 'speedy change of the topic when you're losing' tactic wasn't developed by AGW deniers; creationists have used it for centuries, if not millennia. I've encountered it in discussions with medical quacks too. Catoni just conceded me my debate point when he attempted to the topic. In some threads on this newsgroup, the fossil fools look like they have a severe case of attention deficit disorder. Reply: WRONG!! If you are talking about Earth; climate change and Global Warming, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE NATURAL VARIATION IN THE PLANET'S CLIMATE. Anything less is just foolishness on the part of the Alarmists. Or perhaps an attempt to ignore the facts, for political gain. I've seen your type of tactics used by political left wing agit- props in the past. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk