On 04/12/2011 07:22 PM, Falcon wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-
, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, wrote:

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.

You're cherrypicking, again
R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming", when
clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Today's not as sunny as it was two days ago. Does that mean that the sun
has stopped rising?

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:47:53 +0100, Falcon
wrote:

In article , Tom P wrote...

On 04/12/2011 01:39 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...nthly_MSU_AMSU
_Channel_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

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 example http://i55.tinypic.com/iwrg35.png you can see
how useful a linear trend line is, depending on what you want to show. The

That isn't how science is done, nutter. Scientists don't "want to
show" anything _a_priori_: they only want to show what the facts
are after the evidence is in. They don't act like you alarmist
nutters, starting out with a conclusiuon.


--
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 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Apr 12, 3:47*pm, Falcon wrote:
In article , Tom P wrote...

On 04/12/2011 01:39 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...tglhmam_5.4The 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...nthly_MSU_AMSU
_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to
70S are graphed hehttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

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 example http://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.

Anyway, the title 'Latest Satellite MSU Data Show Continued Warming' infers
that warming is continuing to occur, regardless of latitude. The fact that
RSS satellite measurements have detected a small but appreciable amount of
cooling over the last decade (there's that pesky linear trend thing again)
would indicate that the word 'continued warming' in the subject line is
deliberated misleading.

Of course, as a confirmed 'sceptic', Dawlish has probably already jumped in
here to describe Roger's description as 'spinning' the latest RSS figures.
Or maybe he hasn't ...

Again. He talks through a third party post. Have you figured yet,
spinner, that all killfiling does is allows someone to kick your arse
that sticks up a mile from your head, that's buried in that denier's
crack?

Even, this time, to the extent of accusing someone else of "spinning"
when that's all he ever does in this neswgroup and is how he earned
his nickname.

Confirmed idiots just never learn. laughing

When someone replies to this, you'll see spinner. Hope the boot
doesn't hurt too much, but it's all you deserve. *))

Note how he claimed scientists "want to show" a specific
conclusion instead of showing the conclusions of evidence
regardless of want? That explains him and his cult perfectly.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:02:53 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

On Apr 12, 7:47*am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw pretty
graphs, but in this example http://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.

"What's happening lately" = weather, not climate change.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

That's why he carefully picked his dates. He's trying to deceive
people.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:25:23 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

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.

It is NOT warming!

Why does =ALL= of the evidence say Earth is still warming?

It DID warm, then it stayed AS warm for 13 years.

No.

I must also note yet again that if global warming were to just
suddenly stop, humanity would be royally ****ed.

There is no RATE OF CHANGE currently, thus it is not WARMING.

Huh? What the ****? If the rate of warming stays the same, Earth
is still warming! Sheeeish.

You really need to work on your definitions of terms.

I refuse to define words to mean what I wish them to: it isn't my
job.

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

Nutter.

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw pretty
graphs, but in this example http://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.

You're cherrypicking, again
R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming", when
clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can
show neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any
trend line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms,
is too great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not
warmed would be unthinkable.

In article 95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1
@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://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.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming",
when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can show
neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any trend
line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms, is too
great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not warmed
would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record shows
warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On 4/13/2011 6:39 AM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/12/2011 07:22 PM, Falcon wrote:
In articled47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-
, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, wrote:

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.

You're cherrypicking, again
R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming",
when
clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Today's not as sunny as it was two days ago. Does that mean that the sun
has stopped rising?

No, but it does mean that it is less sunny.

You can't very well say that it is continued sunny when it clearly
isn't. Yet that is what Roger has done.

On 4/11/2011 4:39 PM, 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
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg

The data do NOT show a continued warming. THEY SHOW INCREASING COOLING,
WITH THE MOST RECENT DATA POINTS BEING BELOW NORMAL!!!

Here, I've pointed it out so that you can hopefully see the light. Not
holding my breath though...

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/UAH-MSU.jpg

http://members.cox.net/peter.franks/RSS-MSU.jpg

Lurkers -- decide for yourself. Does the data really show "continued
warming", or is Roger just another GW apologist/propagandist?

On Apr 13, 2:35*pm, Falcon wrote:
In article 95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1









@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 12, 10:22*am, Falcon wrote:
In article d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-

, Roger Coppock wrote...

On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon wrote:

It's also time-dependent. Roger's not the only one who can draw
pretty graphs, but in this example
http://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.

You're cherrypicking, again R^2=0.0075 means nothing.

So are you. You're using an entire record to show "continued warming",
when clearly, the latest records do not show that it's "continuing".

Why are you continuing with this "canard" ? The latest records can show
neither warming, cooling or flat, because the scatter about any trend
line drawn, however robust that might be in statistical terms, is too
great to allow meaningful inference.

Data for the last twenty years allows meaningful inference. It shows
warming is highly likely to have taken place. Data for the last thirty
years shows warming to be so likely, that any proposal it has not warmed
would be unthinkable.

Because, as I have said several times, the entire satellite record shows
warming, but the latest data does NOT show "continued warming".

Which is precisely what YOU just said.

What I said was that examining the latest data on its own can neither
show, nor can it not show, anything whatsoever. In other words, it
definitely cannot,"NOT show "continued warming" " It cannot be
subjected to any meaningful analysis in any way shape or form, so no
statements can be made.

You made a statement based on it. You erred in doing so, so fess up
like a man, or alternatively admit you are baffled by the logic of
statistical inference.