On Feb 20, 2:27*pm, matt_sykes wrote:
On 19 Feb, 15:18, Maggsy wrote:





On Feb 19, 11:48*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 17 fév, 14:46, Maggsy wrote:

On Feb 17, 11:42*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 16 Feb, 22:33, Roger Coppock wrote:

Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

The global data given above are graphed he

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * *Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.75364 * *2.06182 * -12.5 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01295 * *0.00103 * *12.5 * 2.8e-30

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: *157 on 1 and 372 DF, *p-value: 2.82e-30

You are being lied to Roger. *The data can not be trusted.

Prove it?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

80% less weather stations are used today to collate data by GISS and
NCDC than in the 1980s.

What is your source for this?

If the issue of AGW is so impotant why?

It's important because if it's not caused by us then probably we can't
do anything about it.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/* *The graph in the
middle. *Scary isnt it, and its even on thier own website.

Of course, if GW is an important issue why are they not MORE stations
being used?





I think they would probably say that they can only use those stations
that are not in urban areas because of the Urban heat Island
effect.This could be why they are only using 20% of the stations.




One is always tempted to asume that its only the stations that show
wartming that have been kept.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 20, 2:30*pm, O O B O O Z wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:33*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:





Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

The global data given above are graphed he

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * *Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.75364 * *2.06182 * -12.5 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01295 * *0.00103 * *12.5 * 2.8e-30

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: *157 on 1 and 372 DF, *p-value: 2.82e-30

Satellite are liars Roger. * Lookie at what happened to that couple
who trusted their GPS in Washington State and ended up stranded for
days because the satellites sent them to a place full of snow.





How do you know it wasn't the mapping on the GPS that was wrong?



We can't trust satellites anymore. * *The Chinese are sending them up
now.




What's that supposed to mean? They can't be trusted because the
Chinese are sending them up?




- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:57:00 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

JohnGr wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:00Â*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
JohnGr wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:20 pm, Maggsy wrote:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...mps-Hidequoted text -

This links seems to be broken.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Am I wrong or is the temperature scale at the left and right side the wrong
way up?

At some point I must research what these temperatures
actually refer to and how they relate to the 14'C figures.
Maybe the bit that confused you was that all
layers apart from the surface layer are NEGATIVE 'C.

No, I think those dashes relate to the y-axis units.
But it is astonishing, that summer temperatures are lower than winter
temperatures.

Anyway, the differences between all temps are about +/- .5 C.
The variation compared to 0 K, respectively blackbody temperature is hilarious
and within normal natural fluctuations.

Yes-but that is enough to potentially cause problems. The IPCC
is only claiming around 0.15C/decade. The point is if it keeps
going in the same direction (as it has now for 4 decades) it
eventually goes outside natural fluctuations
(on human-historical timescales).

Where "eventually" is no scientific term.
If it would do, it had the chance plenty of times before, at least since
beginning of the holocene.

http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png

Relating to blackbody temperature, the variation is about +/- 0.75 percent.
this is far within a statistical error range of 5%.
So since there doesn't occur a variation of more than +/- 2.5 percent, there
is no reason to worry.
Even IPCC's claims lie within this error range.


"Within this error range" could have been
left off, couldn't it?

What surprised me yesterday is that ocean
temperatures are way different than land
temperatures, that makes it possible for wind
to play an even bigger part in the average
than I imagined.

I think it was a NOAA site that showed
a difference of 7 degrees C, but I can't find
anything like that now, all sites say the sea
is nearing the boiling point.

On 20 Feb, 18:53, Maggsy wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:27*pm, matt_sykes wrote:





On 19 Feb, 15:18, Maggsy wrote:

On Feb 19, 11:48*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 17 fév, 14:46, Maggsy wrote:

On Feb 17, 11:42*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 16 Feb, 22:33, Roger Coppock wrote:

Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

The global data given above are graphed he

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * *Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.75364 * *2.06182 * -12.5 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01295 * *0.00103 * *12.5 * 2.8e-30

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: *157 on 1 and 372 DF, *p-value: 2.82e-30

You are being lied to Roger. *The data can not be trusted.

Prove it?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

80% less weather stations are used today to collate data by GISS and
NCDC than in the 1980s.

What is your source for this?

If the issue of AGW is so impotant why?

It's important because if it's not caused by us then probably we can't
do anything about it.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/**The graph in the
middle. *Scary isnt it, and its even on thier own website.

Of course, if GW is an important issue why are they not MORE stations
being used?

I think they would probably say that they can only use those stations
that are not in urban areas because of the Urban heat Island
effect.This could be why they are only using 20% of the stations.



One is always tempted to asume that its only the stations that show
wartming that have been kept.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If they arent using UHI infected stations why does Hansen adjust for
UHI using night time satellite images?

On 20 Feb, 19:34, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
matt_sykes wrote:
On 19 Feb, 15:18, Maggsy wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:48*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 17 fév, 14:46, Maggsy wrote:

On Feb 17, 11:42*am, matt_sykes wrote:

On 16 Feb, 22:33, Roger Coppock wrote:

Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

The global data given above are graphed he

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
* * * * * * *Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.75364 * *2.06182 * -12.5 * 2e-16
YEARMON * * * 0.01295 * *0.00103 * *12.5 * 2.8e-30

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: *157 on 1 and 372 DF, *p-value: 2.82e-30

You are being lied to Roger. *The data can not be trusted.

Prove it?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

80% less weather stations are used today to collate data by GISS and
NCDC than in the 1980s.

What is your source for this?

If the issue of AGW is so impotant why?

It's important because if it's not caused by us then probably we can't
do anything about it.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/* *The graph in the
middle. *Scary isnt it, and its even on thier own website.

The most scary thing ist, they don't offer unmodified raw data!

You can only choose among their specifications:

a) Raw GHCN data + USHCN corrections
b) after combining sources at same location
c) after homogeneity adjustment

All these 3 options mean applied modification and no real sources.



Of course, if GW is an important issue why are they not MORE stations
being used?

One is always tempted to asume that its only the stations that show
wartming that have been kept.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, like the CRU, they hide the raw data.

I like Dalys site for raw station data. I validated the central
england series against the MEt office web site and it tallied so I am
confident what he has on his site os correct. And it makes
fascinating viewing.

Much of Australia is cooling for example. Even Adelaide, whuich is
urban.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:08:45 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

"I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 19:57:00 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

JohnGr wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:00Â*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
JohnGr wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:20 pm, Maggsy wrote:

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem...mps-Hidequoted text -

This links seems to be broken.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Am I wrong or is the temperature scale at the left and right side the wrong
way up?

At some point I must research what these temperatures
actually refer to and how they relate to the 14'C figures.
Maybe the bit that confused you was that all
layers apart from the surface layer are NEGATIVE 'C.

No, I think those dashes relate to the y-axis units.
But it is astonishing, that summer temperatures are lower than winter
temperatures.

Anyway, the differences between all temps are about +/- .5 C.
The variation compared to 0 K, respectively blackbody temperature is hilarious
and within normal natural fluctuations.

Yes-but that is enough to potentially cause problems. The IPCC
is only claiming around 0.15C/decade. The point is if it keeps
going in the same direction (as it has now for 4 decades) it
eventually goes outside natural fluctuations
(on human-historical timescales).

Where "eventually" is no scientific term.
If it would do, it had the chance plenty of times before, at least since
beginning of the holocene.

http://sceptics.umweltluege.de/vostok/vtrendz.png

Relating to blackbody temperature, the variation is about +/- 0.75 percent.
this is far within a statistical error range of 5%.
So since there doesn't occur a variation of more than +/- 2.5 percent, there
is no reason to worry.
Even IPCC's claims lie within this error range.


"Within this error range" could have been
left off, couldn't it?

All from IPCC could be left off as for me.

As they themselves claim, their models are insufficient and can't predict
anything, not even the amount of **** of a fly surrounding the fluorescent
energy saving lamp at the ceiling of their toilet.


What surprised me yesterday is that ocean
temperatures are way different than land
temperatures, that makes it possible for wind
to play an even bigger part in the average
than I imagined.

I think it was a NOAA site that showed
a difference of 7 degrees C, but I can't find
anything like that now, all sites say the sea
is nearing the boiling point.

Must be true since our local AGW lie-spreading TV showed the documentation on
hypercanes for the ...uhm... was ist 309th or 310th... time.

Their MODEL(!) showed the development of a huge hypercane when ocean
temperatures reach 50°C.
The maximum temperature ever measured of about 32°C is really, really,
really + 128 nines, pretty close.

So fear and panic is appropriate now! ... not.


I stir up one of those hypercanes every
time I get in the shower.

On Feb 16, 8:23Â*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:23Â*pm, chemist wrote
On Feb 16, 9:33Â*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:

Latest Satellite Data Show A Warming Global Climate

The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming.

ø Bull****!! the pluspart of the surface is water and
the water surface is always warmet than the ait.

For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:

ø rticle written by an envirofascist activist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

The regression statistics for the line in the graph above
are below.

Coefficients:
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|)
(Intercept) -25.75364 Â* Â*2.06182 Â* -12.5 Â* 2e-16
YEARMON Â* Â* Â* 0.01295 Â* Â*0.00103 Â* Â*12.5 Â* 2.8e-30

Residual standard error: 0.18 on 372 degrees of freedom
R-Squared: 0.30
F-statistic: Â*157 on 1 and 372 DF, Â*p-value: 2.82e-30

ø Copycock persists in posting all these irrelevant
statistics— irrelevant even if they are real 'raw'.

I get a better R-squared relating CO2 increase
to Ocean temp.

Answer all the questions like a good scientist.

Whose ocean temp?
Whose CO2?
What time period?
What degrees of freedom?


ø The issue is really irrelevant.

Â* Â* Nobody can control the wind

Â* Â* Nobody can control the rain or snow

Â* Â* Nobody (collectively) can control climate.

Â* Â* Global temps are within natural variations

Â* Â* Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation

Â* Â* Get used to it!!

Â* Â* — — 
Â*
| In real science the burden of proof is always 
Â*
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far 
Â*
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one 
Â*
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have 
Â*
| they provided data that climate change is being 
Â*
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by 
Â*
| natural phenomena