On Apr 15, 8:47*pm, Tom P wrote:
On 04/15/2011 02:03 PM, Dawlish wrote:





On Apr 15, 10:20 am, Tom *wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:

On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

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...onthly_MSU_AMS....

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!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

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

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

How does it show the earth is still warming?

You can get a reasonably accurate fit of the temperature anomaly since
1979 by fitting a linear plus sinusoidal function to the data.
You get a linear trend of 0.14/decade plus a sinusoidal with a cycle of
3.73 years and half amplitude of about 0.13 c.http://tinypic.com/r/10e4iac/7

Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
return to a maximum in 2013-2014.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, thanks John. What we are seeing there is mainly ENSO noise around
a warming signal. The troughs, with the most recent, as you say, at
present, generally represent the La Ninas. If you look at the
temperature trend, joining all the troughs, there is a clear message
and it's one which has allowed me to ask a difficult question of the
climate deniers as a result. La Ninas are effectively getting warmer.
The question is; "why", when other forcings, during previous La Ninas
have not been all negative, as they afre at present.

Here's another fit -http://tinypic.com/r/28qzyp3/7
The periodic function is a sawtooth with a base period of 3.47 years in
1979 which exponentially declines (factor 3 = -0,002) to 3.9 years at 2012.
The correlation is 73%. The linear component remains 0.135/decade.

The curve fit was implemented in OpenOffice using the Sun Microsystems
Solver For Non-linear Programming 0.9.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yes. it shows the same warming, if you take the troughs of the la
Ninas.

Same question to deniers. Why do La Ninas cause less cooling now than
they did 30 years ago?

I'll take answers on Monday. Off to the Big Smoke to watch the
marathon. *))

Be good.

On 4/15/2011 1:42 PM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/15/2011 02:42 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/15/2011 2:20 AM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

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!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

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

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

How does it show the earth is still warming?

You can get a reasonably accurate fit of the temperature anomaly since
1979 by fitting a linear plus sinusoidal function to the data.
You get a linear trend of 0.14/decade plus a sinusoidal with a cycle of
3.73 years and half amplitude of about 0.13°c.
http://tinypic.com/r/10e4iac/7

Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
return to a maximum in 2013-2014.

That's your linear model.

The data itself shows something different, and definitely NOT continued
warming. It may warm again, in the future, or it may not, but in the
meantime, "Latest Satellite MSU Data Show Continued Warming" is patently
false.

Notice how Roger can't even defend his own post.

The calculation shows how all 30 years of measured data can be modelled
with an accuracy of 70% correlation as a sum of a cyclic component plus
a linear component.
Now tell us again about why you ignore 90% of the data.

I'm not. I'm challenging the assertion that "Latest Satellite MSU Data
Show Continued Warming" -- it doesn't.

On 4/15/2011 12:47 PM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/15/2011 02:03 PM, Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:20 am, Tom wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:





On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

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...onthly_MSU_AMS....


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!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

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

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

How does it show the earth is still warming?

You can get a reasonably accurate fit of the temperature anomaly since
1979 by fitting a linear plus sinusoidal function to the data.
You get a linear trend of 0.14/decade plus a sinusoidal with a cycle of
3.73 years and half amplitude of about 0.13
c.http://tinypic.com/r/10e4iac/7

Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
return to a maximum in 2013-2014.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, thanks John. What we are seeing there is mainly ENSO noise around
a warming signal. The troughs, with the most recent, as you say, at
present, generally represent the La Ninas. If you look at the
temperature trend, joining all the troughs, there is a clear message
and it's one which has allowed me to ask a difficult question of the
climate deniers as a result. La Ninas are effectively getting warmer.
The question is; "why", when other forcings, during previous La Ninas
have not been all negative, as they afre at present.

Here's another fit - http://tinypic.com/r/28qzyp3/7
The periodic function is a sawtooth with a base period of 3.47 years in
1979 which exponentially declines (factor 3 = -0,002) to 3.9 years at 2012.
The correlation is 73%. The linear component remains 0.135/decade.

The curve fit was implemented in OpenOffice using the Sun Microsystems
Solver For Non-linear Programming 0.9.

Yes, that is fine, it is also a model. Roger's subject/post isn't about
the model, it is about the data. It DOESN'T show continued warming.

If you want to pal up w/ Roger and have him revise his subject to say
"Modeled MSU Data Show Continued Warming", have at it, and you won't
hear from me.

On 04/15/2011 11:15 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/15/2011 12:47 PM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/15/2011 02:03 PM, Dawlish wrote:
On Apr 15, 10:20 am, Tom wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:





On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

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...onthly_MSU_AMS....



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!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

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

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

How does it show the earth is still warming?

You can get a reasonably accurate fit of the temperature anomaly since
1979 by fitting a linear plus sinusoidal function to the data.
You get a linear trend of 0.14/decade plus a sinusoidal with a cycle of
3.73 years and half amplitude of about 0.13
c.http://tinypic.com/r/10e4iac/7

Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
return to a maximum in 2013-2014.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, thanks John. What we are seeing there is mainly ENSO noise around
a warming signal. The troughs, with the most recent, as you say, at
present, generally represent the La Ninas. If you look at the
temperature trend, joining all the troughs, there is a clear message
and it's one which has allowed me to ask a difficult question of the
climate deniers as a result. La Ninas are effectively getting warmer.
The question is; "why", when other forcings, during previous La Ninas
have not been all negative, as they afre at present.

Here's another fit - http://tinypic.com/r/28qzyp3/7
The periodic function is a sawtooth with a base period of 3.47 years in
1979 which exponentially declines (factor 3 = -0,002) to 3.9 years at
2012.
The correlation is 73%. The linear component remains 0.135/decade.

The curve fit was implemented in OpenOffice using the Sun Microsystems
Solver For Non-linear Programming 0.9.

Yes, that is fine, it is also a model. Roger's subject/post isn't about
the model, it is about the data. It DOESN'T show continued warming.

If you want to pal up w/ Roger and have him revise his subject to say
"Modeled MSU Data Show Continued Warming", have at it, and you won't
hear from me.

Peter, it's very simple. Tell us why the temperatures have dropped in
2011. And while you're at it, tell us why they -
rose in 1979, 1983, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2009,
and why they fell in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2003, and 2007.

On 04/15/2011 11:13 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/15/2011 1:42 PM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/15/2011 02:42 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/15/2011 2:20 AM, Tom P wrote:
On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter
wrote:

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!!!

No. And since your graphs (below) show Earth is still warming, one
has got to wonder what the bloody hell you could possibly be lying
for.

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

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

How does it show the earth is still warming?

You can get a reasonably accurate fit of the temperature anomaly since
1979 by fitting a linear plus sinusoidal function to the data.
You get a linear trend of 0.14/decade plus a sinusoidal with a cycle of
3.73 years and half amplitude of about 0.13°c.
http://tinypic.com/r/10e4iac/7

Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
return to a maximum in 2013-2014.

That's your linear model.

The data itself shows something different, and definitely NOT continued
warming. It may warm again, in the future, or it may not, but in the
meantime, "Latest Satellite MSU Data Show Continued Warming" is patently
false.

Notice how Roger can't even defend his own post.

The calculation shows how all 30 years of measured data can be modelled
with an accuracy of 70% correlation as a sum of a cyclic component plus
a linear component.
Now tell us again about why you ignore 90% of the data.

I'm not. I'm challenging the assertion that "Latest Satellite MSU Data
Show Continued Warming" -- it doesn't.

So we agree that you just have a problem with the subject line wording,
and is this a discussion about syllogisms? Post hoc fallacies?

On 04/15/2011 12:15 AM, Falcon wrote:
In , Tom P wrote...

On 04/14/2011 02:39 AM, Falcon wrote:
In articlede2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In article95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

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

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, 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 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.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.


For student philosophers looking for good examples of fallacies,
alt.global-warming is a great place to start.
What you are saying is that Roger is indulging in the so-called post
hoc fallacy by implication -the Satellite MSU Data are so-and-so,
therefore warming continues. In a formal sense, this is correct - the
observation that the sun rose this morning like every day as long as
anyone can remember leads most people to the fallacious conclusion that
the sun will rise tomorrow.
However, where the fallacial arguments really take off is when we see
people applying the fallacy of false dichotomy - because Roger's
statement is not sound in the strict logical sense, it must be false -
therefore it's cooling!

Who said it was cooling, Tom? The sole reason for my response was that the
subject line is misleading. The latest MSU data cannot be said to show
"continued warming".


See my other posts.....

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...cean_v03_3.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg


Roger,
I observe that after 3 days of exposure of this data to the skeptic
community, the primary reaction from skeptical quarters has been a
critical note that the data do not "show" continued warming.
This of course does invite a rally call to the false dichotomy.

As a consequence, I have taken the liberty of altering the subject line.
Your obdt. srvt.
T.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:10:50 +0200, 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/monthly_time_series/
RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_an d_Ocean_v03_3.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed he
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg


Roger,
I observe that after 3 days of exposure of this data to the skeptic
community, the primary reaction from skeptical quarters has been a
critical note that the data do not "show" continued warming.
This of course does invite a rally call to the false dichotomy.

As a consequence, I have taken the liberty of altering the subject line.
Your obdt. srvt.

Oops, I think you screwed the pooch there, Tom, by using the word
"abrupt". The data as shown does indeed show abrupt cooling several
times, as well as abrupt warming. Roger insists on using only a 30yr low
pass filter, and it's very hard to see any abrupt changes that way.

I suspect if you apply a 5yr lowpass zerophase filter, you'll see an
initial warming ramp until around 2000, then a plateau to the present.

It seems hard to explain how CO2 could cause that, since it's been rising
steadily since 1958.

are you saying that the years, not listed,
continued a brief trend, or ended one?

rose in 1979, 1983, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005, and 2009,
and why they fell in 1981, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 1999, 2003, and 2007.- Hide quoted text -

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:06:20 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

On 04/14/2011 02:39 AM, Falcon wrote:
In articlede2ee785-5cd2-4908-a437-23253c22ae93
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com, JohnM wrote...

On Apr 13, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In article95db4a50-35c6-45b8-8cc9-ce012ffea5e1

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

On Apr 12, 10:22 am, 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 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.

Good grief, this is pedantic nonsense. If you're saying that Roger's
subject line is factually incorrect, i.e. that the latest MSU data cannot
be said to show continued warming, any more that they can show that there
has been no warming, or even cooling, then we agree. That much should have
been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
line is misleading.

Yet more evidence "falcon" is a whacko.

For student philosophers looking for good examples of fallacies,
alt.global-warming is a great place to start.
What you are saying is that Roger is indulging in the so-called post
hoc fallacy by implication -the Satellite MSU Data are so-and-so,
therefore warming continues. In a formal sense, this is correct - the
observation that the sun rose this morning like every day as long as
anyone can remember leads most people to the fallacious conclusion that
the sun will rise tomorrow.

The current global warming anomaly suddenly ceasing is a bit less
likely as the sun failing to appear to rise in the morning. It
would take a catastrophic disaster to stop global warming.

However, where the fallacial arguments really take off is when we see
people applying the fallacy of false dichotomy - because Roger's
statement is not sound in the strict logical sense, it must be false -
therefore it's cooling!

Yes, even when he said the -LATEST- data (the past two years or
so) cannot be said to show warming or cooling, he still says it's
cooling. Amazing.


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