On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:18:02 +0100, Falcon
wrote:

In article eafbc20f-f0d3-4f01-8b30-8cb604fb7005
@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, Roger Coppock wrote...

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_5.4 The global data
are graphed he http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also shows a
temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...cean_v03_3.txt
hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to 70S
are graphed he http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

Absolutely hilarious.

Huh?

If ever a headline was designed to fuel public scepticism about
climate hysteria

Huh? What "hysteria?" What the ****?

it's that one. "MSU Data show continued warming", my arse.

You mean Earth hasn't really been warming?

Dude, you have become quite the comical figure here.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:39*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
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_5.4
The global data are graphed he http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea. http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...onthly_MSU_AMS...
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

Roger, its not 'continued warming'.

Why does =ALL= of the evidence say otherwise?

Warming stopped.

Why does =ALL= of the evidence say otherwise?

Sticking a red line on a scatter plot does not mean its still warming.

Nutter.

Its clear fro the graph that its currently as warm as 1980. How is
that continued?

Nutter.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

"Dawlish" wrote in message

On Apr 12, 7:17 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:42:21 +0100, Falcon wrote:
In article , Tom P wrote...

On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
In , Tom P wrote...
[..]
The trend is very much dependent on the latitude. If you look at
the figures for the various latitude bands, the positive trend
is most dramatic for 60/82, and nearly as strong for -20/20,
whereas the trend for -70/70 is almost zero - which seems to
indicate that temperate latitudes are not warming??

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this
examplehttp://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see how useful
a linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added
another trend line that's probably a little more representative
of what's been happening lately.

Sure - if you think that leaving out 95% of the RSS data is
"representative". Using a 10-year data span, all you have to do is
pick the right El Nino peaks and troughs for your start and
end-points, and you can get any result you care for.

95% of the data? That's a bit of an exaggeration, Tom, unless
someone hired a TARDIS and took the satellites all the way back in
time to 1811. Anyway, that sort of illustrates my point. The full
30 years record DOES show warming of course - no-one suggests it
hasn't - but the LATEST data does not. I took the last ten years
worth of data and it shows that the LATEST satellite data does NOT
show "continued warming". Therefore Roger's subject line is
deliberately misleading. Now why is that so hard to understand?

How about, "Roger tries desperately to show continued warming, but
fools no one."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about; "bilbo (and every other climate denier) goes against the
view of almost every scientist on earth, every scientific institution
and every government who attended Cancun". who *all* recognise a
warming trend in the surface and sateliitie data?Why do they all see
it and you completely fail to see it, bilbo?

They don't drink enough milk.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:06:43 +0100, Falcon wrote:

In article , Bill Ward
wrote...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:24:13 +0200, Tom P wrote:

[..]

Sure - if you think that leaving out 95% of the RSS data is
"representative". Using a 10-year data span, all you have to do is
pick the right El Nino peaks and troughs for your start and
end-points, and you can get any result you care for.

Well, right now is where we are, and seems to be a reasonable end
point, so at what point on the graph would you suggest starting? What
percentage of starting points give you a warming trend versus a cooling
trend?

Easy. Start in 1979 and end in 2002.

http://i51.tinypic.com/rcu6g0.gif

I get a "server not found" error from that URL.

H/T climate4you.com

I meant:

http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png

which was the graph cited. I also said "starting points", using the
present day (most recent data) as the ending point.

The tide-gauge in Amsterdam, installed
in 1682, is the oldest in the world. Superimposing
this subsidence record on the
uplift record from the Stockholm tidegauge,
I was able to isolate a eustatic factor
for the time period 1680 to about
1970 (Mörner 1973). This shows a rise
from 1830-1840 up to 1930-1940 of 11
cm. In that 100-year period, the Earth’s
rate of rotation decelerated at a value
which corresponds to a 10-cm sea level
rise (see, for example, Mörner 1996).
Consequently, there is a very good fit
between sea level rise and rotational
deceleration, which seems to provide a measure of a global
sea level factor (the blue line with respect to the red line in
Figure 3).
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/

On Apr 12, 6:25*pm, Tom P wrote:
On 04/12/2011 05:44 PM, matt_sykes wrote:





On Apr 12, 3:41 pm, Tom *wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:45 AM, matt_sykes wrote:

On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger * *wrote:
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/Satell...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/.../tltglhmam_5.4
The global data are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.http://www..remss.com/data/msu/month...onthly_MSU_AMS...
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

Roger, its not 'continued warming'. *Warming stopped. *Sticking a red
line on a scatter plot does not mean its still warming.

Its clear fro the graph that its currently as warm as 1980. *How is
that continued?

If you pick and choose the numbers, you can get anything you like.
Obviously you prefer your version.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I dont prefer anything (actually, a bit warmer might be quite
pleasant) . *I just want the truth.

Today it's colder here than it was yesterday. Does that prove anything?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just want the truth.

On Apr 13, 12:49*am, Desertphile
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes

wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:39*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
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_5.4
The global data are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
shows a temperature rise above the surface of the land and sea.http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...onthly_MSU_AMS...
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
Roger, its not 'continued warming'.

Why does =ALL= of the evidence say otherwise?

Warming stopped.

Why does =ALL= of the evidence say otherwise?

Sticking a red line on a scatter plot does not mean its still warming.

Nutter.

Its clear fro the graph that its currently as warm as 1980. *How is
that continued?

Nutter.

--http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

It is NOT warming! It DID warm, then it stayed AS warm for 13
years. There is no RATE OF CHANGE currently, thus it is not WARMING.

You really need to work on your definitions of terms.

Constant velocity is NOT aceleration. Constant temperature is NOT
warming!

On 04/12/2011 06:42 PM, Falcon wrote:
In , Tom P wrote...

On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
In , Tom P wrote...
[..]
The trend is very much dependent on the latitude. If you look at the
figures for the various latitude bands, the positive trend is most
dramatic for 60/82, and nearly as strong for -20/20, whereas the trend
for -70/70 is almost zero - which seems to indicate that temperate
latitudes are not warming??

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw pretty
graphs, but in this examplehttp://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see
how useful a linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The
data is from Roger's thoughtfully provided source. I added another trend
line that's probably a little more representative of what's been happening
lately.

Sure - if you think that leaving out 95% of the RSS data is
"representative". Using a 10-year data span, all you have to do is pick
the right El Nino peaks and troughs for your start and end-points, and
you can get any result you care for.

95% of the data? That's a bit of an exaggeration, Tom, unless someone hired
a TARDIS and took the satellites all the way back in time to 1811.

The table
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...cean_v03_3.txt
contains 9 columnss of data from the year 1979. That's nearly 3,500
data points.
You present one graph starting from 2001 with 132 data points. So 95%
loss is an underestimate.

Anyway,
that sort of illustrates my point. The full 30 years record DOES show
warming of course - no-one suggests it hasn't - but the LATEST data does
not. I took the last ten years worth of data and it shows that the LATEST
satellite data does NOT show "continued warming". Therefore Roger's subject
line is deliberately misleading. Now why is that so hard to understand?

On 04/13/2011 12:06 AM, Falcon wrote:
In , Bill Ward
wrote...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:24:13 +0200, Tom P wrote:

[..]

Sure - if you think that leaving out 95% of the RSS data is
"representative". Using a 10-year data span, all you have to do is pick
the right El Nino peaks and troughs for your start and end-points, and
you can get any result you care for.

Well, right now is where we are, and seems to be a reasonable end point,
so at what point on the graph would you suggest starting? What
percentage of starting points give you a warming trend versus a cooling
trend?

Easy. Start in 1979 and end in 2002.

http://i51.tinypic.com/rcu6g0.gif

H/T climate4you.com

But your break point at year 2003 for the trend lines is totally
arbitrary. If you choose year 2000 as the break point, your "no
increase" disappears.
In other words, you are just seeing what you want to see, and showing
what you want to show. Do you call that scientific? Unbiased?

On Apr 13, 11:22*am, Tom P wrote:
On 04/13/2011 12:06 AM, Falcon wrote:



In , Bill Ward
wrote...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:24:13 +0200, Tom P wrote:

[..]

Sure - if you think that leaving out 95% of the RSS data is
"representative". Using a 10-year data span, all you have to do is pick
the right El Nino peaks and troughs for your start and end-points, and
you can get any result you care for.

Well, right now is where we are, and seems to be a reasonable end point,
so at what point on the graph would you suggest starting? *What
percentage of starting points give you a warming trend versus a cooling
trend?

Easy. Start in 1979 and end in 2002.

http://i51.tinypic.com/rcu6g0.gif

H/T climate4you.com

But your break point at year 2003 for the trend lines is totally
arbitrary. If you choose year 2000 as the break point, your "no
increase" disappears.
In other words, you are just seeing what you want to see, and showing
what you want to show. *Do you call that scientific? Unbiased?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spinner ignores context and cherry-picks data points. It's so easy to
do - but the only person convinced by such tactics can only be
himself.