Wake up, Al! I've answered this question for you before.

On Aug 5, 6:02*pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:
Great! 1.5K/Century

Not even at the IPCC best estimate of the "Low Scenario"

To look at acceleration of a climate trend, one
needs about 5 decades to achieve statistical
significance. We'll need to wait another two
decades to collect enough satellite data. Meanwhile,
there are more than enough conventional ground
data to see that the warming is clearly accelerating.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

On Aug 5, 12:36Â*pm, Joern Abatz wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:16:30 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
RSS Satellite Data Clearly Show A Warming Global Climate
[...]
Coefficients:
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -30.38442 Â* Â*2.02506 Â* -15.0 Â* 2e-16
YEARMON Â* Â* Â* 0.01528 Â* Â*0.00102 Â* Â*15.1 Â* 3.8e-40

Residual standard error: 0.172 on 365 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.38
F-statistic: Â*226 on 1 and 365 DF, Â*p-value: 3.8e-40

Why those much discussed trendlines are probably insignificant
--------------------------------------------------------------

Data sources:
-------------
UAH:http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2
RSS:ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_...msu_amsu_chann...

Regression:
-----------
UAH y = Â*0.01268 * x + -25.21167 ; r² = Â*0.26293 ; sd = Â*0.18073 ;
Â* Â* n1 = 68.08 ; n2 = 95.20

RSS y = Â*0.01528 * x + -30.38425 ; r² = 0.38279 ; sd = Â*0.17127 ;
Â* Â* n1 = 71.66 ; n2 = 94.82

Variables:
----------
x: the month (as a number, 2009.0 is January 2009, 2009.5 is July 2009,
Â* Â*half a year later)

y: expected value for month x (i.e. what the trendline says)

r²: correlation between time line and observed values (1 = perfect, 0 =
Â* Â* no correlation at all)

sd: standard deviation (calculated from the difference between observed
Â* Â* and expected values)

n1: percentage of values within plus/minus one standard deviation

n2: same for two standard deviations

The point is:
-------------
In theory, n2 is 95 percent, if the observed values are completely random
(no correlation, no causation, no real connection).

As the n2 values are in fact still near 95 percent, we still are on the
edge of pure noise. Or, maybe, the whole idea of a linear trend is just
not what's going on in the real world.

Joern

Gee you're a good spin doctor, Joern!
Someone without any training in statistics
might think you found something wrong.
These data show a warming trend, PERIOD.


Its so hot, I'm freezing,

Its getting hotter all the time.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 18:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

Wake up, Al! I've answered this question for you before.

On Aug 5, 6:02Â*pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:
Great! 1.5K/Century

Not even at the IPCC best estimate of the "Low Scenario"

To look at acceleration of a climate trend, one
needs about 5 decades to achieve statistical
significance. We'll need to wait another two
decades to collect enough satellite data. Meanwhile,
there are more than enough conventional ground
data to see that the warming is clearly accelerating.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg


What is the trend after the 2nd time around on a roller
coaster?

On Aug 5, 9:51*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
Wake up, Al! *I've answered this question for you before.

On Aug 5, 6:02*pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:

Great! 1.5K/Century

Not even at the IPCC best estimate of the "Low Scenario"

To look at acceleration of a climate trend, one
needs about 5 decades to achieve statistical
significance. *We'll need to wait another two
decades to collect enough satellite data. Meanwhile,
there are more than enough conventional ground
data to see that the warming is clearly accelerating.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

•• As usual Roger is wrong and is trying to
validate his stupidity on his own site.

The present cooling trend, in 50 years, will
clearly reflect the start of the new ice age.

I didn't say anything about deceleration.

The thirty year -trends- are all -below- the predicted Low Scenario
trend of the IPCC!

Including surface (CRU and GISS).

Including MSU (RSS-MT, RSS-LT, UAH-MT, UAH-LT).

Including SST (Hadley).

Since the monster stories of global warming are
all at the Hi Scenario and the temperature trends aren't
even reaching the predicted rate of the LOW Scenario
those paying attention are questioning the panic.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Wake up, Al! I've answered this question for you before.

On Aug 5, 6:02 pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:
Great! 1.5K/Century

Not even at the IPCC best estimate of the "Low Scenario"

To look at acceleration of a climate trend, one
needs about 5 decades to achieve statistical
significance. We'll need to wait another two
decades to collect enough satellite data. Meanwhile,
there are more than enough conventional ground
data to see that the warming is clearly accelerating.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:23 am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:16 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

More crap from an alarmist Kook site.

What you mean is, you can't refute a word of it - not one.

No, what I mean is I can write the same thing you do and provide the
same justification. Or is your complaint about the way it is
presented. I should have called it a "lying k00ksite" like you do.

Baseless bull**** is baseless bull****. What you mean is, you can't
refute a word of it - not one.

On Aug 6, 10:45*am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:23 am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:16 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

More crap from an alarmist Kook site.

What you mean is, you can't refute a word of it - not one.

No, what I mean is I can write the same thing you do and provide the
same justification. *Or is your complaint about the way it is
presented. *I should have called it a "lying k00ksite" like you do.

* Baseless bull**** is baseless bull****. *What you mean is, you can't
refute a word of it - not one.

I will keep that in mind, and remind you of it the next time you make
one of your "lying k00ksite" posts. It works both ways.

Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 6, 10:45 am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 10:23 am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:16 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

More crap from an alarmist Kook site.

What you mean is, you can't refute a word of it - not one.

No, what I mean is I can write the same thing you do and provide the
same justification. Or is your complaint about the way it is
presented. I should have called it a "lying k00ksite" like you do.

Baseless bull**** is baseless bull****. What you mean is, you can't
refute a word of it - not one.

I will keep that in mind, and remind you of it the next time you make
one of your "lying k00ksite" posts. It works both ways.

Any time. I don't make claims I can't back up.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:28 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
RSS Satellite Data Clearly Show A Warming Global Climate

One month shows a warming global climate?

No, Peter, there are 367 months of data here.
That 30 years and 7 months.

Roger, I just know you good enough that you won't have come up with
"Clearly Show A Warming Global Climate", if data would have been less
than last month.

Anyway, you try to provide false pretences.

The average temperature of RSS LT over the whole record length
is 14.082921 °C.
This means a negligible change of 0.083 °C over 30 years.

Exactly the same applies for other records.

Here is a list:
(total record lenght, relative to 14°C base line, units in °C,
last month's data where new one is not yet available):

GISS+dsst: 13,981219 -0,0188
GISS Glb: 14,017419 0,0174
GISS NH: 14,031958 0,0320
GISS SH: 14,002905 0,0029
HadCRUT3: 13,829626 -0,1704
HadSST2: 13,823654 -0,1763
MSU LT: 14,071916 0,0719
MSU MT: 14,024588 0,0246
MSU LS: 13,866345 -0,1337
RSS LT: 14,082921 0,0829
RSS MT: 14,049308 0,0493
UAH LT: 14,067875 0,0679


"Clearly Show A Warming Global Climate", eh, awesome storyteller?

cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo

Al Bedo wrote:
I didn't say anything about deceleration.

The thirty year -trends- are all -below- the predicted Low Scenario
trend of the IPCC!

Including surface (CRU and GISS).

Including MSU (RSS-MT, RSS-LT, UAH-MT, UAH-LT).

Including SST (Hadley).

Show us.