| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
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. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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. That is 74 years with no significant global warming. When is this CO2 and methane going to start having some effect? Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry- picking. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 28, 2:00*pm, 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. thanks Roger |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 29, 11:51*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote: On Mar 28, 2:00*pm, 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. thanks Roger thanks Roger :) |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
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.----- |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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! |
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest Februaryon NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
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. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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. 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! The presumed cooling trend is caused by cherry picking of AGW deniers. 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
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. |
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. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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. 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. 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? if you guys can use one or two hot summers in Australia, why can't we use eight or ten years? And those are just year by year, not over long periods of time. But you guys feel it is evidence. 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. Funny. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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? |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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? |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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 |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
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 |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
On Mar 29, 11:14*am, wrote:
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 12th not 14th 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. Yes! It's very good to see someone can read. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
Catoni wrote:
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. Already done. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
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. Made-up crap. |
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
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?? Read much? lol |
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk