12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Catoni wrote:
ha.. ha. I was laughing so hard I made mistakes in my post. Here you
go. The corrected version,.

wrote:


"Catoni - so you say. Are you going to give us any
evidence for this,
or are just supposed to consider you infallible, kind of like the
Pope?"

Reply:


God no! Far be it from me to put myself in the place of
His Holiness Al Gore, and the Cardinal, James
Hansen, and Cardinal Dr. David Suzuki.
And let's not forget the great Global Warming priest Leonardo Di
Caprio and other self appointed climate expert celebrities of the
socialist left/lib persuasion.


On no, I could never take their places. ROTFLMAO

Surrender accepted. ;)

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Mr Right wrote:
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 invisible 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 I don't have any scientific rebuttal, I will make
a trivia.

Trivia are trivial, meaningless, and take peoples attention away from
the fact that Q has nothing intelligent to say.

Denialist for "Q is kicking my ass all over the group and I can't disprove
a word he says."

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Mr Right wrote:
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.

Denilaits for "Q is kicking my ass all over the group and I cannot refute
a word he says."

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 29, 6:33*pm, Catoni wrote:
On Mar 29, 2:52*pm, wrote:





On Mar 29, 2:46*pm, Catoni wrote:

Anyone who claims that the warming of the Earth is unusual based on
evidence of the last 130 years...

* *(12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere
Record - post by Roger Coppock)

* *is either trying to deceive and build the Alarm level, or just has
no understanding of the history of the Earth's climate, and no
knowledge if the recent warming is within normal variation for the
planet or not.

* Which one is it for you Roger?

Catoni - so you say. *Are you going to give us any evidence for this,
or are just supposed to consider you infallible, kind of like the
Pope?

Reply:

Are you saying that you have not studied the history of the Earth's
climate at all??

* Actually Paleoclimatology is an interesting subject. Look into it.
It's really quite interesting.
* You might lose your fear of Climate Change.

* Thankyou for being honest about your ignorance of the subject at
least.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've studied the subject a little, skimmed through the Fred Singer/
Dennis Avery book on it.

The gist of the Singer/Avery argument as I understand it is that in
1983, when environmental thinkers already were starting to warn
against the perils of "global warming," and when Keeling's data on CO2
levels at Mauna Loa observatory were already becoming known, somebody
came up with an alternative theory of "inevitable global warming every
1,500 years" based on the notion that overlapping climate trends
triggered by sunspots could somehow combine to generate long swings in
climate conditions, without any influence by industrial CO2 emissions.

It's kind of an interesting theory, but I think it fits into the
ABCD's of climate change Denial as most of you guys practice it: The
answer is ALWAYS "Anything But Carbon Dioxide."

Paleoclimatology as I have briefly examined it indicates that there
have been wide swings in climate conditions in the past, many or even
most of them brought on by factors other than rising CO2 emissions.

However, it's only in the past 200 - 300 years that there have been
rising emissions of industrially generated CO2, due to human societies
digging up and burning fossil carbon that has essentially been
"sequestered" underground from the global carbon cycle for tens of
millions if not hundreds of millions of years.

QED: mainstream climate science notes that industrial CO2 emissions
are a NEW factor in the global climate machinery, and the implication
is that this new factor should have, and is apparently having, a
number of important effects on the climate that are independent of
those generated by some of the older factors that generated previous
ice ages and periods of warming.

I have no problem with Deniers like you when you point out --
correctly, as far as I can see -- that past climate changes have
largely been drivien by Milankovitch cycles, changes in the earth's
albedo, changes in solar intensity, etc. Most of the climate
scientists and climate science popularizers that I've read have agreed
with this.

What seems absurd to me, however, is your insistence that these non-
CO2 factors must be the ONLY factors currently capable of inflencing
the climate. And when you call attention away from Roger's post about
February 2009 temps in the Northern Hemisphere to focus readers on
Paleoclimatology, I think that's what you're basically doing.

You're clearly fairly well informed about Paleoclimatology - probably
much better informed than I am, I would guess.

But what kind of willfully ignorant fanatic can ignore the Keeling CO2
data and recent climate trends towards "global warming" while focusing
exclusively on the Paleoclimate, I wonder?

From my perspective, anyway, you're just ignoring the proverbial
elephant in the room. I imagine because you own a piece of the
elephant, or would like to.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 29, 7:50*pm, Catoni wrote:
* wrote:

* * * * * * "Catoni - so you say. *Are you going to give us any
evidence for this,
or are just supposed to consider you infallible, kind of like the
Pope?"

* Reply:

* * * * * * *God no! *Far be it from me to put myself in the place of
Their Holinesses, the His Holiness Al Gore, and the Cardinal, James
Hansen, and Cardinal Dr. David Suzuki.
* And let's not forget the great Global Warming priest Leonardo Di
Caprio and his other self appointed climate expert celebrities.

* On no, I could never take their places. *ROTFLMAO

But you've just been acting like the Pope in this usenet group,
Catoni. Maybe you're really the spiritual twin of Gore and Hansen,
and you just don't realize it. :-)

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 29, 7:56*pm, Catoni wrote:
ha.. ha. *I was laughing so hard I made mistakes in my post. *Here you
go. *The corrected version,.

* wrote:

* * * * * * "Catoni - so you say. *Are you going to give us any
evidence for this,
or are just supposed to consider you infallible, kind of like the
Pope?"

* Reply:

* * * * * * *God no! *Far be it from me to put myself in the place of
His Holiness Al Gore, and the Cardinal, James
Hansen, and Cardinal Dr. David Suzuki.
* And let's not forget the great Global Warming priest Leonardo Di
Caprio and other self appointed climate expert celebrities of the
socialist left/lib persuasion.

* On no, I could never take their places. *ROTFLMAO

What does adding "of the socialist left/lib persuasion" add to the
validity of your post?

The last I checked, Hansen was a liberal Republican; I believe a few
years ago he was a fan of John McCain. Al Gore is pretty obviously
not a socialist, but a rather moderate Democrat -- moderate enough to
serve in the Clinton administration at a time when the Clintonites
were helping the Republicans to deregulate the banking industry.

"Socialist" is just the Denialist swear word of choice, isn't it?
It's just another way for Denialists to engage in ad hominem attacks
on people who follow the mainstream climate science.

Why do you guys engage in this cheap, obviously false rhetoric, I
wonder?

Obviously it plays well with American libertarians and many American
conservatives -- the dumber ones, the ones who have never spent much
time learning what "socialism" actually means.

But even if your argument from Paleontology is correct -- which I
strongly doubt -- you're weakening it by coupling it with an ad
hominem argument based on a lie.

Why do that, if you think your argument from Paleoclimatology is any
good?

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Catoni wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

"But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology.
You just tried to change the subject, again."


Reply:
Your the one that mentioned a time period. 130 years.
You claim that the temperature has something to do with Global
Warming. If you wish to discuss Global Warming you must take into
account the historical climate of the Earth in order to determine if
climate change now is unusual or not in the greater context.
Anything less is just a political agenda on your part using Global
Warming as an excuse.

Made-up crap.



Roger Coppock wrote:

"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! "


Reply:

You guys claim one or two hot summers in Australia is
proof of Global Warming.

Ridiculous bull****.


If Tucson Arizona has record hot day, you guys mention it in this
list. Why? The unmentioned implication is that it is because of Global
Warming. California wild fires? Global Warming right?

You denialists post several times the number of weather posts the AGW
folks do. lol



if you guys can use one or two hot summers in Australia, why can't
we use eight or ten years?

They don't, so you can't.


And those are just year by year, not over long periods of time. But
you guys feel it is evidence.

Made-up crap.


However, the funny thing is, if Alaska and Canada have a record cold
summer, or China has a record breaking cold winter etc. the skeptics
are not allowed to use that as evidence of anything.

Warmist alarmists. They want it all ways. They want their cake and
eat it too. But skeptics aren't allowed to use the same tactics.


Made-up crap.

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest Februaryon NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

marcodbeast wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
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 invisible 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 I don't have any scientific rebuttal, I will make
a trivia.

Trivia are trivial, meaningless, and take peoples attention away from
the fact that Q has nothing intelligent to say.

Denialist for "Q is kicking my ass all over the group and I can't disprove
a word he says."



:-)

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

if you guys can use one or two hot summers in Australia, why can't
we use eight or ten years?


marcodbeast wrote:
" They don't, so you can't."


Reply:
You're a liar marcodbeast.
And everyone here that has been following the posts now know
that you are a liar.
Or else you just don't follow threads here very well.
Which one is it?
It's all here in this groups archives.
AGW Alarmists implying that the hot weather in Australia was
because of Global Warming.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:55:11 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Mar 28, 5:16Â*pm, Catoni wrote:
[ . . . ]
Â* Second, Â* The last 130 years??? Â*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!

And you are trying to establish a climate trend from 130 years out of 12000
years?

How foolhardy you AGWs are.

http://umweltluege.de/images/holocene_trend.jpg
(Yes, this is from your AGW bible "Wikipedia")

Do you AGW folks really believe, that we reach a +0.6 °C increase at the end
of this century?
Look at the graph, it points at -0.25°C at that moment.
Adding 0.6°C means +0.35°C at the end of this century, which fits to a
temperature 8000 years in the past.

If you really believe this, you have to accellerate your warming by a factor
of 80 to reach your guessed goal in one century.

Oh... merely... it doesn't look like that.


The latest graphs from GISS don't seem so bad if a fifteen
year period 1935-1950 is compared to the ten year period 1993-2008.

About 0.3 degrees, and I believe beginning to use digital
with decimals has to produce a good part of that.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py

doesn't work, it can be viewed with

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html


and clicking on the "Show Map" button.


But even with the millions spent on this vain effort to show
a crisis, unless a person just happened to be in a location where
the _weather_ was colder than hell in the cold years, it would be
very difficult for anyone to notice any change because of the wide
range in daily temperatures at any location.

The wide range of daily record max high is recorded, but
the daily record min high is hard to find, and it is the spread of
these two data that makes the temperature a non-issue.