Latest Satellite MSU Data Show Continued Warming
Roger Coppock
shows that the air near the surface is warming.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
The global data are graphed here:
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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
GABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-FOR-PRESIDENT
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> The global data are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
>
> The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
Why would one need a 500 million billion dollar satellite, to know the
temperature of the Earth, at or near the surface of the Earth?
Wouldn't a 99 cent thermometer do the trick?
More billion dollar lies............................that's why
Chow
Falcon
@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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the University
> of Alabama at Huntsville.
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 The global data
> are graphed here: 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_C
> are graphed here: http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
Absolutely hilarious. If ever a headline was designed to fuel public
scepticism about climate hysteria, it's that one. "MSU Data show continued
warming", my arse.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
matt_sykes
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> The global data are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
>
> The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:http://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?
Falcon
27g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, matt_sykes wrote...
>
> On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > University of Alabama at
> > Huntsville.http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed
> > here: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_
> > here:http://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.
>
> continued?
http://i55.tinypic.com/ffbgvb.png
Dawlish
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the University
> > of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > are graphed here: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_C
> > hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to 70S
> > are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
>
> Absolutely hilarious. If ever a headline was designed to fuel public
> scepticism about climate hysteria, it's that one. "MSU Data show continued
> warming", my arse.
>
> --
> Falcon:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So spinner says it doesn't...............but the trend shows it
clearly does.
I think spinner has just defined climate denial.
I also love the way that, just *one day* later, spinner uses exactly
the same phrase that was used by someone he both detests and is trying
to hide from, to decry climate science. The phrase, to my knowledge
has not been used for 12 months on here.
Killfile; *my arse*. <laughing out loud as he heads out into the
sunshine>
GABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-FOR-PRESIDENT
> On Apr 12, 8:18 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the University
> > > of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > > are graphed here: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_C
> > > hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to 70S
> > > are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
>
> > Absolutely hilarious. If ever a headline was designed to fuel public
> > scepticism about climate hysteria, it's that one. "MSU Data show continued
> > warming", my arse.
>
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So spinner says it doesn't...............but the trend shows it
> clearly does.
>
> I think spinner has just defined climate denial.
>
> I also love the way that, just *one day* later, spinner uses exactly
> the same phrase that was used by someone he both detests and is trying
> to hide from, to decry climate science. The phrase, to my knowledge
> has not been used for 12 months on here.
>
> Killfile; *my arse*. <laughing out loud as he heads out into the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dawlish, how is your acne situation.?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
O love stalkers. Especially the really foul name-changing racist ones.
When a stalker starts; you know you've got to him properly. This one
is a racist and a creationist and thinks he can comment on science.
he's never criticised by his own - the climate deniers - which says an
awful lot about them, en mass.
Just call him what he is and apart from doinmg that; ignore every
single post he ever makes.................
Tom P
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??
Tom P
> On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock<rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>>
>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
>> The global data are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
>>
>> The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:http://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.
Falcon
>
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 The global
> > data are graphed here: 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
> > 70S are graphed here: 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
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 ...
Dawlish
> In article <90j2v4Fn5...@mid.individual.net>, 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
>
> - Show quoted text -
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. *>))
matt_sykes
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont prefer anything (actually, a bit warmer might be quite
pleasant) . I just want the truth.
matt_sykes
>
> - Show quoted text -
You forgotten the Iodine supliments again janner?
Tom P
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.
Tom P
> On Apr 12, 3:41 pm, Tom P<werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2011 09:45 AM, matt_sykes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock<rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>>> The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
>>>> shows that the air near the surface is warming.
>>
>>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
>>>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
>>>> The global data are graphed here: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_AMS...
>>>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:http://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?
JohnM
> In article <90j2v4Fn5...@mid.individual.net>, 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > > data are graphed here: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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to
> > > 70S are graphed here: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.
Any and all linear tend lines are useless without at the very least
some information on the reliability of the slope calculated. No
confidence interval = no value.
Also the residuals need to be calculated to ensure that original data
are homoscedastic, or again the result is questionable.
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.
By taking a shorter time line, significance of any trend will be
lowered. It seems certain that the weak down-turn your graph shows
results from random fluctuations rather than any real change in the
rate of warming.
<snip>
Falcon
>
> On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
> > In article<90j2v4...@mid.individual.net>, 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 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.
>
> 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?
JohnM
> In article <90jcldF33...@mid.individual.net>, Tom P wrote...
>
> > On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon 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 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.
>
> > 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".
As I point out in a post above, your data set shows nothing. The
scatter of points is too great to allow inference concerning any or no
time trend.
Therefore Roger's subject
> line is deliberately misleading. Now why is that so hard to understand?
I agree that all that is certain from the satellite record is that
there has been warming over the last 20 years. Period.
Roger Coppock
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> >http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed here:
> >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.
> > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> >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??
Roger Coppock
> 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.
Last Post
> shows that the air near the surface is warming.
> For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
ø Such silly nonsense. Roger you sound
like Hansen reporting the "Antarctic lake
the size of California a decade back.
ø The sattelite was wrong then and is likely
wrong now..
ø FYI Roger the Dodger, the Northern
Hemisphere IS warming (Spring) but the
Southern Hemisphere is NOT.
ø Grow up, Fool!!
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all!
Falcon
e2764a...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Roger Coppock wrote...
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".
Catoni
I wonder how his teeth are? One thing I notice about the British....
many of them do not seem to know what a toothbrush is, and avoid
dentists like the plague.
I have British and Scottish ancestry myself....I assume my
ancestor's teeth were pretty bad....what teeth they had.
Dawlish
> In article <90jcldF33...@mid.individual.net>, Tom P wrote...
>
> > On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mainly because spinner is forgetting context, yet again. Factor in
ENSO.
Spinner doesn't and tries to spin the data to show no warming. Any
scientist looks at the trend, recognises there is noise around that
warming trend; recognises that the trend will *never* and can *never*
be linear and sees warming over time. A climate denier cherry-picks
two points from all the years within the scatter and says there has
been no warming.
Bill Ward
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?
Bill Ward
How about, "Roger tries desperately to show continued warming, but fools
no one."
Dawlish
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:42:21 +0100, Falcon wrote:
>
> >> On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
>
> - 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?
Speedbump
<fishermans.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > The global data are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
>
> > The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
> temperature of the Earth, at or near the surface of the Earth?
> Wouldn't a 99 cent thermometer do the trick?
>
> More billion dollar lies............................that's why
>
> Chow
YOU ARE A FUKKIN IDIOT
Falcon
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
Desertphile
GABRIELLE-GIFFORDS-FOR-PRESIDENT <fisherm...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed here:
> > 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.
> > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> > http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
> Why would one need a 500 million billion dollar satellite, to know the
> temperature of the Earth, at or near the surface of the Earth?
> Wouldn't a 99 cent thermometer do the trick?
All of the missing ice certainly tells us Earth has been warming
at an astonishing rate; but the satellites give us very good
actual numbers. Note also that the satellites doing the
temperature measurements also do many other things.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the University
> > of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 The global data
> > are graphed here: 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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
> > hannel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to 70S
> > are graphed here: 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 fuck?
> 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.
Desertphile
<zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > from the University of Alabama at Huntsville. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed here: 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_AMS...
> > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here: 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.
James
news:2c56c7d0-6c4a-4d36...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
They don't drink enough milk.
Bill Ward
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.
rasterspace
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/
matt_sykes
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just want the truth.
matt_sykes
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > > The global data are graphed here:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
>
> > > The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis also
> > > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here: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.
>
> 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!
Tom P
> In article<90jcld...@mid.individual.net>, Tom P wrote...
>>
>> On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
>>> In article<90j2v4...@mid.individual.net>, 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 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.
>>
>> 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/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_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.
Tom P
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?
Dawlish
> On 04/13/2011 12:06 AM, Falcon wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - 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.
Tom P
has stopped rising?
Desertphile
wrote:
> In article <90j2v4...@mid.individual.net>, 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> > >
> > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > > http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4 The global
> > > data are graphed here: 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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to
> > > 70S are graphed here: 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.
--
ShyDavid
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 3:47 pm, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > In article <90j2v4Fn5...@mid.individual.net>, 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > > > The URL below is one of the more conservative records from the
> > > > University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > > >http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4The global
> > > > data are graphed here: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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt The data from 82.5N to
> > > > 70S are graphed here: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
> > 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.
ShyDavid
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> 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.
ShyDavid
> 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 fucked.
> There is no RATE OF CHANGE currently, thus it is not WARMING.
Huh? What the fuck? 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.
JohnM
> In article <d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-
>
> e2764a792...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Roger Coppock wrote...
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.
Falcon
@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>, JohnM wrote...
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.
Peter Franks
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.
Peter Franks
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> The global data are graphed here:
> 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.
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?
JohnM
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.
Falcon
@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, JohnM wrote...
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.
ShyDavid
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:22 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > In article <d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-
> >
> > e2764a792...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Roger Coppock wrote...
> >
> > > On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> 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.
But he knows that fact already; he just does not give a shit.
> 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.
With the March data now published, the statistical significance is
now.... (Excel Spreadsheet)... 97.63% confidence that
unprecedented global warming has happened. That is a drop from
97.71% three months ago.
ShyDavid
wrote:
And as you know, "the latest data" is not an indicator of climate
change.
ShyDavid
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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
> >
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> > http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed here:
> > 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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
> > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> > 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.
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:29:28 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>>>
>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
>>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
>>> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
>>> The global data are graphed here:
>>> 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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
>>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
>>> 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/RSS-MSU.jpg
How does it show the earth is still warming?
rasterspace
note that this is when the voluntary cap&trade came-in,
on the heels (or vise-versa) of the 2nd Gulf War,
continuosly proseltyzed as being "to control the oil,"
although it did cut-off about a tenth of our supply,
at that time, I have read.
hey, if Californians are not allowed to drill for oil
off of our own coastline, how can we control the oil
in a place where it's dark when it's light, here?
Tom P
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!
Tom P
> On Apr 12, 6:25 pm, Tom P<werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2011 05:44 PM, matt_sykes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 3:41 pm, Tom P<werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2011 09:45 AM, matt_sykes wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 1:39 am, Roger Coppock<rcopp...@adnc.com> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>>
>>>>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
>>>>>> The global data are graphed here: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_AMS...
>>>>>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:http://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.
Looking at your other posts, I have my doubts.
Tom P
At this rate, in 300 years the confidence will dropped almost to zero!!
;=))
Falcon
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".
JohnM
As I understand Roger's post, he is saying data shows warming is
continuing from 30 years ago to the present. Even at 20 years it is
possible make an equivalent statement. On any shorter time frame, no
statement can be made.
> That much should have
> been patently obvious. The sole reason for my response was that the subject
> line is misleading.
Indeed he missed some vital qualifying words from his title. That
should have been rectified, but he chose not to. You are similar in
that regard when you omit important qualifiers to analyses.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
...........and there's the spin.
matt_sykes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well dont doubt, believe it since it is the truth.
Tom P
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.
Dawlish
> On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/13/2011 5:43 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
> >> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> >>>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> >>>>http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> >>>> The global data are graphed here:
> >>>>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.
>
> >>>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> >>>>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
>
> Right now we are on the downward swing of the sinusoidal but it will
>
> - 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.
Peter Franks
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.
leona...@gmail.com
> 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:
> >>> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >>>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> >>>>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> >>>>>http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> >>>>> The global data are graphed here:
> >>>>>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.
>
> >>>>> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> >>>>>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.
ø What do you expect from the Jackass?
— —
ø Roger the Dodger has lost it.
No sense
No brains
No nothing at all!
Peter Franks
NOTHING!
Tom P
> On Apr 15, 10:20 am, Tom P<werot...@freent.dd> 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 Franks<n...@none.com>
>>>> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>>
>>>>>> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
>>>>>> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
>>>>>> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
>>>>>> The global data are graphed here:
>>>>>> 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.
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.
Tom P
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.
Dawlish
> 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
>
> - 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.
Peter Franks
I'm not. I'm challenging the assertion that "Latest Satellite MSU Data
Show Continued Warming" -- it doesn't.
Peter Franks
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.
Tom P
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.
Tom P
So we agree that you just have a problem with the subject line wording,
and is this a discussion about syllogisms? Post hoc fallacies?
Tom P
> In article<90p5uc...@mid.individual.net>, Tom P wrote...
Tom P
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> The global data are graphed here:
> 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_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
> The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
> 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.
Bill Ward
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.
tensegriboy
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 -
Desertphile <>
wrote:
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
Desertphile <>
wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 09:23 AM, matt_sykes wrote:
> > I just want the truth.
> Looking at your other posts, I have my doubts.
No, ge gets the truth all the time: he just rejects it--- he said
he wants the truth, not that he accepts it.
Desertphile <>
> Well dont doubt, believe it since it is the truth.
And yet you show absolutely no interest in the truth. Do you see
the problem here?
Desertphile <>
wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 02:40 AM, ShyDavid wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:02:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
> > <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Apr 12, 10:22 am, Falcon<fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >>> In article<d47a02bb-592a-4c02-8917-
> >>> e2764a792...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Roger Coppock wrote...
> >>>> On Apr 12, 7:47 am, Falcon<fal...@invalid.net> 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".
So, what "falcon" is saying is that since last night was cold, the
northern hemisphere has some how skipped summer and fall and gone
straight back to winter: THE LATEST DATA SHOWS IT.
Goopd bloody gods.
> >> 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.
> > But he knows that fact already; he just does not give a shit.
> >> 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.
> > With the March data now published, the statistical significance is
> > now.... (Excel Spreadsheet)... 97.63% confidence that
> > unprecedented global warming has happened. That is a drop from
> > 97.71% three months ago.
> At this rate, in 300 years the confidence will dropped almost to zero!!
> ;=))
Proof we don't need to worry about it! Whew.
Desertphile <>
wrote:
The latest weather report cannot be said to show summer will be
warmer than winter.
Desertphile <>
wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 02:54 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
Yes. Worse yet, "Peter Franks" appears to not understand how the
median was derived. Even when the current global temperature drops
below the median, it can (and does!) still show warming unless and
until the temperature drop goes below the assigned lebel of
confidence (usually 95%). That's the whole swatting point of
deriving a median on a graph: one can then graph the level of
confidence above and below it.
Desertphile <>
> 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.
That's a great point; but are the El Ninos also getting warmer?
Desertphile <>
wrote:
You are being deliberately stupid, for reasons I cannot fathom.
The latest data -DOES- show global temperature still warming, even
when the temperature dips. If you don't understand why then you're
too stupid to breath without a coach.
> It may warm again in the future
You mean it will continue to warm.
> or it may not
No, global temperature will not not warm: excess atmospheric CO2
is still warming the planet.
> but in the
> meantime, "Latest Satellite MSU Data Show Continued Warming" is patently
> false.
And yet that's exactly what the latest data shows.
> Notice how Roger can't even defend his own post.
There's nothing about his post that requires defending.
leona...@gmail.com
> 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/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> > The URL below is one of the more conservative records
> > from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
> >http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.4
> > The global data are graphed here:
> >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.
> > The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
ø Trivial partial data from Roger the Dodger
--- totally worthless
> 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.
ø More idiocy from Tom the putz
—— ——
ø Roger the Dodger & Tom the Putz have lost it.
leona...@gmail.com
> On 04/15/2011 11:15 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
> > 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.
ø There is something worse than that, the
data is a la Hansen/Schmidt.
Then there is first Hansen's trend to only
record the Northern Hemisphere.
Then they reduced the number of stations
from 6,000 to 1,200 and eliminated the the
cooler/colder units.
— —
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling
to that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,
terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.˙
Peter Franks
...and conclusion
Peter Franks
Don't know, don't care; what I do know is that the latest MSU data does
not show continued warming.
Tom P
caused by CO2, and reflect phenomena such as La Nina. The key word is
"cyclic".
Last Post
> On Apr 12, 5:42 pm, Falcon <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <90jcldF33...@mid.individual.net>, Tom P wrote...
>
> > > On 04/12/2011 04:47 PM, Falcon wrote:
> > > > In article<90j2v4Fn5...@mid.individual.net>, 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 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.
>
> > > "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?
>
> > --
> > Falcon:
> > fide, sed cui vide. (L)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ENSO.
>
> Spinner doesn't and tries to spin the data to show no warming. Any
> scientist looks at the trend, recognises there is noise around that
> warming trend; recognises that the trend will *never* and can *never*
> be linear and sees warming over time. A climate denier cherry-picks
> two points from all the years within the scatter and says there has
> been no warming.
Last Post
>
> See my other posts.....
ø ROTFLMAO — What other posts?
None of the Putz' posts make any sense.
ø The end of the last interglacial period was
1,600 years ago. That long trend is the real
sort trend that Tom the Putz and Roger the
Dodger should be looking for an
understanding of our climate. But I don't
think they will
ø Look for the Polar ice to start moving toward
the Equator between 2020 and 2050.
— —