Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock wrote:
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

It doesn't clutter up the plot and does give some extra info so
my vote is leave it in.

--
A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise". A
kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says
"Surprise! The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:43:18 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

Every bit helps.
Leave it in.
--

A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.

mr_antone

On 2/11/2011 12:43 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

Leave it in, but add a horizontal line at T=0.0, and how about a drop at
where they meet, as in:

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

To me that paints an /unbiased/ picture.

On Feb 11, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
On 2/11/2011 12:43 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

Leave it in, but add a horizontal line at T=0.0, and how about a drop at
where they meet, as in:

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

Given that the vertical scale is arbitrary, I can't see what physical
reality the additional horizontal and vertical line could illustrate.





To me that paints an /unbiased/ picture.

On Feb 11, 12:47*pm, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

It doesn't clutter up the plot and does give some extra info so
my vote is leave it in.

--
A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise". A

NO,

A scientist says, "THESE data ARE," not, "THIS data IS."

The word "data" is plural.


kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says
"Surprise! The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".

On 2/11/2011 4:02 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 11, 3:17 pm, Peter wrote:
On 2/11/2011 12:43 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

Leave it in, but add a horizontal line at T=0.0, and how about a drop at
where they meet, as in:

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

Given that the vertical scale is arbitrary, I can't see what physical
reality the additional horizontal and vertical line could illustrate.

Arbitrary?

Then how can you tell if it is warming or de-cooling?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:02:40 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock wrote ...

On Feb 11, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
On 2/11/2011 12:43 PM, Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

Leave it in, but add a horizontal line at T=0.0, and how about a drop at
where they meet, as in:

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

Given that the vertical scale is arbitrary, I can't see what physical
reality the additional horizontal and vertical line could illustrate.

Of course, a temperature rise of about 0.2 C per decade was projected for
the next two decades for all SRES scenarios. As the IPCC (2007) range of
climate projections is from 1.1 to 6.4 C, shouldn't the UAH trend be
compared with all scenario estimates - and be scaled accordingly?

To me that paints an /unbiased/ picture.

I don't think there's any need to borrow any bias, Roger. I think you have
just about as much of your own as you can handle.

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

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

On Feb 11, 12:47 pm, wrote:
In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock wrote:

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
Does the information in red, the yearly means, help you read this
graph, or would the graph be easier to read without it?

It doesn't clutter up the plot and does give some extra info so
my vote is leave it in.

--
A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and
says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise". A

NO,

A scientist says, "THESE data ARE," not, "THIS data IS."

The word "data" is plural.

The word point is singular. The word data is descriptive in the first
sentence making the second sentence out of context.




kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says
"Surprise! The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".

Roger Coppock wrote:
A scientist says, "THESE data ARE," not, "THIS data IS."
The word "data" is plural.

Woger, you've spent so long miswepwesenting science that it's
absolutely ****-faced stupid of you to go to a gwammar/spelling flame.
You'we faw too useless for anyone to cawe.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think"
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net