August Satellite data is in

The August Satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville is in and it shows that the earth is continuing to cool.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

The August 2008 anomaly was -0.010 degrees. That is 0.296 degrees below August 2007 and the 12th month in a row that the temperature has been cooler then the prior year. August 2008 was the 12th coolest of the 30 year satellite record or as some would prefer to put it, the 19th warmest year ever. August 1998 was the hottest August in the last 30 years and a full 0.523 degrees warmer then August 2008.

What does this mean? Not much, but neither does a few months of hot temperatures. Try to keep that in mind the next time the planet starts warming.

:crazy:

The earth is not 'cooling'. Only an innumerate would claim or believe that it is.

Michael Crichton said so.

LOL

:beer:

If I were you I would look at the data.
To quote the founder of Faber College, Emil Faber, "Knowledge is good"

The warming trend is evident in the data to which you link. It is obvious, however, that you cannot comprehend the data.

The August Satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville is in and it shows that the earth is continuing to cool.
Is that a lie?
The August 2008 anomaly was -0.010 degrees. That is 0.296 degrees below August 2007 and the 12th month in a row that the temperature has been cooler then the prior year.
Is that a lie?
August 2008 was the 12th coolest of the 30 year satellite record or as some would prefer to put it, the 19th warmest year ever.
Is that a lie?
August 1998 was the hottest August in the last 30 years and a full 0.523 degrees warmer then August 2008.
Is that a lie?

Now this part is just opinion so it's tough for this to be considered a lie
What does this mean? Not much, but neither does a few months of hot temperatures. Try to keep that in mind the next time the planet starts warming.

So if you claim you're not lying, you must be asserting your ignorance.

That sounds like cooling to me. You can justifiably argue about when to choose a start and end date but to just haul off and call me a liar tells me that despite what you said you are not familiar with the data and frankly aren't really interested in facts. What would that make you?

Cherry picking two data points and comparing them side-by-side is not a substitute for statistical analyisis of all of the data.

You are correct I did partially cherry pick the data points. Why shouldn't I? That is a time honored tradition among global warming alarmists. I did however include all the accurate data that is available.
My statement:
August 2008 was the 12th coolest of the 30 year satellite record or as some would prefer to put it, the 19th warmest year ever. Includes all the available, accurate, data.

I also said:
What does this mean? Not much, but neither does a few months of hot temperatures. Try to keep that in mind the next time the planet starts warming.

Do you disagree with this statement?

What's the decadal trend for all available data? What's the trend for the last decade of data? Hint: both trends are positive. I don't have to cherry pick to show that the earth is warming.

Don't whine when you get called on the carpet for spouting off about data when you have no clue about how to process data. Clubbing at the strawman "climate alarmist" simply illustrates how vacuous your claims are.

So has the 18,000 year trend.

That's why I posted:

What does this mean? Not much, but neither does a few months of hot temperatures. Try to keep that in mind the next time the planet starts warming.

If someone plots a regression line through a collection of data points, and the line has a positive slope with a fair R^2 value, would you be more interested in why the line fits the data or the existence of data points below the regression line?

Honestly I haven't done a R squared analysis in 30 years but I don't see how it will be significant. For starters if you are going to use CO2 you run into significant issues because the increase in CO2 has been relatively consistent while temperature is much more variable and although the overall trend has been positive no way is it a close match.

It also depends on when you start and end the line. If you start the line in 1979 the temperature has risen 0.35 degrees by the end of 2007. If you start it in 1980 the temperature has risen by just 0.19 degrees by the end of 2007.

If you end either in 2008 both will almost certainly have an even smaller increase and possibly a decrease. As I said depends on when you start and end the line.

The history of satellite data only goes back 30 years. From 1979 through 1997 the temperature was fairly steady. 1998 was a truly strange year and if not confirmed, by a variety of different measurement systems, could probably been written off as "bad data". But it was confirmed. 1998 had a huge El Nino but El Ninos are part of earth's natural cycle, as are La Ninas, so that is not a valid excuse. Since 1998 the temperature has averaged about 0.2 degrees warmer. I don't see that as a trend but as a step function. 2008 is shaping up to be cooler, more along the lines of the 1979 - 1997. Is that another step or just an anomaly? I don't know.

That is, probability of a upward trend over time is unity.

She is a statistician and did it using a SAS program. comparing year to temp She came up with an R square of 0.427704. I didn't give her the data for CO2 versus temp.
When I asked her about your Tau p value of 0 she questioned why you would pick it.

Please explain why you chose tau p.

it's a nonparametric test. It makes no assumptions about the shape of the curve: it only tests whether or not there is an increase (or decrease) over time. So I don't have to worry about whether I'm trying to fit a line to data that isn't linear. Or a quadratic to something that's not quadratic, etc.

The tau value I actually got was 0.36

You can try it yourself here:
http://www.wessa.net/rwasp_kendall.wasp

Here's a reference:
http://rsscse.org.uk/ts/bts/noether/text.html