On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:26:29 +1100, "SwindledByFakeAGW"

Not true.

The mean temperature has increased
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=050848&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_me...

The monthly mean minimum temperature has increased
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=050848&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_me...

news:5jf7k7hkejif0mibeqa5cfakpecekd9pgq@4ax.com...

WARMIST GARBAGE!
Did you look at the graphs supplied?
Obviously not.
NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE OR CHANGE IN PRECIPITATION SINCE 1960 AND YOUR
GRAPHS CONFIRM MY GRAPHS!

Warmest Regards

B  O  N  Z  O

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me  that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:

"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-great...

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species

In sci.skeptic Surfer <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

My online climate database shows the area around Boulder
is warming around 2.5C per century post 1900.

<http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/trend.cgi?city=&country=&year=19...>

This is actually a conservative number due to the method.

--
Of course "global temperature are rising", we're emerging from an ICE AGE!!
  -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 8 Feb 2011 12:22 +1100

news:4f46d642@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

<snip>

<Quote snipped link>

     http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/trend.cgi?city=&country=&year=19...
    This is actually a conservative number due to the method.

<End quote>

But unlike Kym Horsell, you havn't done calculations to determine the
trends.

On Feb 27, 6:04 am, "Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote:

As usual the kooks want to narrow down to a particular station, a
particular year, a particular
method, and then to measure things by eye to get their "results".

In this case the kooky attraction is probably increased because
Boulder is not a representative
station anyway. Boulder City is at elev 770m and Boulder is elev 1638.
We'd expect the trends
at just those sites to probably be affected by the observed pattern
that low atm is warming
and strat is cooling. Perhaps one or other is near a cusp?

Which is why when you are doing science rather than looking to
advertise you found another
outlier aint you clever, you mix things up.  Taking a 1deg x 1deg box
with Boulder in the centre
we find the expected warming trend -- perhaps even a little more than
the global avg.

As for the precipitation trends since 1960 -- there is a borderline
case with significance 87%.
Using the same 1x1 deg box around Boulder the stations Boulder,
Cheesman and Ft Collins
show an avg prec increase of around 8 mm per century.  R2 is only 3%
so there is plenty of noise
in the data, even with 2-sigma outliers removed. The 90% CI for the
trend is [-4,20] mm. As I said, 87%
is borderline acceptable in normal circles; kooks would grab it if
only the sign were different.

--
[Lesson not learned:]
I found this passage interesting: "Due to a quirk in statistical
theory,
for any model and any test, statistical 'significance' is guaranteed
as
long as you collect enough data. Once the sample size reaches a
critical
level [aka small enough compared with dataset], small p-values
practically rain from the data."
-- Bonzo [daily nymshifter], 22 Feb 2012 10:48 +1100

Looking at the period 2000 to 2011 ...
Temperature remains about 58 while CO2 rises from about 369.40 to
about
391.57.
My eyeballs tell me there is NO CORRELATION FOR THIS PERIOD!
-- Bonzo [daily coal lobby nymshifter], 21 Feb 2912 01:05 pm

On Feb 27, 12:56 pm, kym <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
....

Jeez these computer thingies are going to catch on; they're useful for
testing all sorts of ideas quickly.

I performed a TS regression for each of the 6000-odd temp datasets in
my database and then
did a 2nd-level regr on the warming/cooling rates vs elevation. Pretty
rough and ready -- no
adjustments for seasonality/hemisphere, let alone any gridding.

As expected from other observations, there is a stat sig decline in
warming rates with elevation.

The basic output is thus:

y == warming/cooling rate as determined by prev TS regr for that
station in deg C/yr
x == elev in 100s of m

y = -0.00146638*x + 0.0544083
r       -0.667352
limits for beta at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.68709 at 37 d.f.
beta in -0.00146638 +- 0.000453874 = [-0.00192025, -0.0010125]
T-tests on beta:
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta != 0.000000
calculated t = -5.45067 at 37 d.f.
|t| > tc (1.68709 2-sided); reject H0
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta < 0.000000
t < tc (-1.30485 left tail); reject H0
Probabilities:
P(beta!=0.000000) = 0.999997
P(beta<0.000000) = 0.999998
limits for alpha at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.68709 at 37 d.f.
alpha in 0.0544083 +- 0.00899212 = [0.0454162, 0.0634004]
r2 = 0.445359
calculated Spearman corr = -0.675911
Testing:
H0: vars are independent
|r| > rc (0.432000 2-sided) at 1%; reject H0

I.e. there is almost certainly a non-chance relationship between
observed rates of warming
and elevation, with higher altitudes showing a smaller rate of
warming, possibly no change,
and possibly a cooling trend.

Altitude alone explains 45% of the variation between warming rates for
the 6000 stations.

We can further compound our rough back of the envelope calc and ask at
what altitiude
do we estimate the cusp between lower atm warming and upper atm
cooling (aka
conservation of energy) is taking place.

The model shows

y == 0

when

x = 0.0544083/0.00146638 == 37.10 == 3710m.

Yes, this is very very rough, but it indicates to me the altitude
above which warming is not significant
might actually be  rather lower than I suspected.

To kooks -- you have many, many more places to look for non-
representative temperature trends!

--
[Lesson not learned:]
I found this passage interesting: "Due to a quirk in statistical
theory,
for any model and any test, statistical 'significance' is guaranteed
as
long as you collect enough data. Once the sample size reaches a
critical
level [aka small enough compared with dataset], small p-values
practically rain from the data."
-- Bonzo [daily nymshifter], 22 Feb 2012 10:48 +1100

Looking at the period 2000 to 2011 ...
Temperature remains about 58 while CO2 rises from about 369.40 to
about
391.57.
My eyeballs tell me there is NO CORRELATION FOR THIS PERIOD!
-- Bonzo [daily coal lobby nymshifter], 21 Feb 2912 01:05 pm

news:0d7ad5e7-617f-4ddf-b34e-ed0d1bc79d30@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 12:56 pm, kym <kymhors...@gmail.com> wrote:
....

<Start quote>

I performed a TS regression for each of the 6000-odd temp datasets in
my database and then did a 2nd-level regr on the warming/cooling rates vs
elevation. Pretty
rough and ready -- no adjustments for seasonality/hemisphere, let alone any
gridding.

As expected from other observations, there is a stat sig decline in warming
rates with elevation.

<snip>

I.e. there is almost certainly a non-chance relationship between observed
rates of warming and elevation, with higher altitudes showing a smaller rate
of warming, possibly no change, and possibly a cooling trend.

Altitude alone explains 45% of the variation between warming rates for the
6000 stations.

We can further compound our rough back of the envelope calc and ask at what
altitiude
do we estimate the cusp between lower atm warming and upper atm cooling (aka
conservation of energy) is taking place.

The model shows
y == 0
when
x = 0.0544083/0.00146638 == 37.10 == 3710m.

Yes, this is very very rough, but it indicates to me the altitude above
which warming is not significant might actually be  rather lower than I
suspected.

<End extract>

Thanks. That is very interesting.

It may explain why the Arctic, which is at sea level, is warming much faster
than the Antarctic Plateau, which has an average elevation of about 3000m.