October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global Land Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 129 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean October temperature over the last 129 years is 14.039 C.
The Variance is 0.08678.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2946.

Rxy 0.6669 Rxy^2 0.4448
TEMP = 13.69613 + (0.005276 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 101.737218
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of October in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.377,
yet it was 14.68. - 1 SIGMA above projection
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6987

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.700616 * e^(.0003758 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6870

Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.86 0.821 2.79
2003 14.76 0.721 2.45
2007 14.74 0.701 2.38
2006 14.74 0.701 2.38
2004 14.71 0.671 2.28
2008 14.68 0.641 2.18 -
1995 14.60 0.561 1.90
1998 14.58 0.541 1.84
2002 14.57 0.531 1.80
1990 14.51 0.471 1.60
2001 14.50 0.461 1.56
1988 14.47 0.431 1.46
1999 14.43 0.391 1.33
MEAN 14.039 0.000 0.00
1902 13.62 -0.419 -1.42
1892 13.61 -0.429 -1.46
1976 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1908 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1880 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1897 13.59 -0.449 -1.52
1884 13.58 -0.459 -1.56
1904 13.57 -0.469 -1.59
1898 13.57 -0.469 -1.59
1917 13.55 -0.489 -1.66
1912 13.52 -0.519 -1.76
1903 13.50 -0.539 -1.83
1891 13.36 -0.679 -2.31
1886 13.35 -0.689 -2.34

The most recent 191 continuous months, or 15 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1546 months of data on this data set:
-- 756 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 790 of them are below the norm.
This run of 191 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

On Nov 15, 8:32*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global Land Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 129 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean October temperature over the last 129 years is 14.039 C.
The Variance is 0.08678.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2946.

Rxy 0.6669 * Rxy^2 0.4448
TEMP = 13.69613 + (0.005276 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 101.737218
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of October in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.377,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.68. - 1 SIGMA above projection
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6987

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.700616 * e^(.0003758 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6870

* Rank of the months of October
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2005 * 14.86 * * 0.821 * * 2.79
2003 * 14.76 * * 0.721 * * 2.45
2007 * 14.74 * * 0.701 * * 2.38
2006 * 14.74 * * 0.701 * * 2.38
2004 * 14.71 * * 0.671 * * 2.28
2008 * 14.68 * * 0.641 * * 2.18 -
1995 * 14.60 * * 0.561 * * 1.90
1998 * 14.58 * * 0.541 * * 1.84
2002 * 14.57 * * 0.531 * * 1.80
1990 * 14.51 * * 0.471 * * 1.60
2001 * 14.50 * * 0.461 * * 1.56
1988 * 14.47 * * 0.431 * * 1.46
1999 * 14.43 * * 0.391 * * 1.33
MEAN * 14.039 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1902 * 13.62 * *-0.419 * *-1.42
1892 * 13.61 * *-0.429 * *-1.46
1976 * 13.60 * *-0.439 * *-1.49
1908 * 13.60 * *-0.439 * *-1.49
1880 * 13.60 * *-0.439 * *-1.49
1897 * 13.59 * *-0.449 * *-1.52
1884 * 13.58 * *-0.459 * *-1.56
1904 * 13.57 * *-0.469 * *-1.59
1898 * 13.57 * *-0.469 * *-1.59
1917 * 13.55 * *-0.489 * *-1.66
1912 * 13.52 * *-0.519 * *-1.76
1903 * 13.50 * *-0.539 * *-1.83
1891 * 13.36 * *-0.679 * *-2.31
1886 * 13.35 * *-0.689 * *-2.34

The most recent 191 continuous months, or 15 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1546 months of data on this data set:
* -- 756 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 790 of them are below the norm.
This run of 191 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. *A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

Does that get you excited poopycock?
Your stunted sexuality should not become society's problem.

There is no scientific evidence for cause and effect for CO2 to
climate.

The ice cores prove no correlation.
Temperature statistics prove no correlation.
Laboratory evidence PROVES no correlation.

This leaves only the enjoyment of your freaky little pud as the
motivation for your perverted view of climatology.
If you don't keep it to yourself, freak, you might lose it. Have you
ever thought about that??

KD

This dialogue so far is really strange.

Roger Coppock offers one of his usual posts filled with NASA
temperature data and discussions of its statistical significance.
It's the kind of thing that unfortunately (no offense, Roger) often
puts people to sleep.

But kdth = Keith then responds with comments about Roger's "freaky
pud" and [allegedly] "stunted sexuality."

Does anybody in here know whether Keith usually responds with
homoerotic sexual fantasies to other people's discussions about
statistics?

On Nov 15, 2:06*pm, wrote:
On Nov 15, 8:32*am, Roger Coppock wrote:




View profile
More options Nov 15, 2:06 pm

Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology
From:
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:06:30 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Nov 15 2008 2:06 pm
Subject: October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global
Land Record.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Nov 15, 8:32 am, Roger Coppock wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global Land Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.


These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 129 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.


The Mean October temperature over the last 129 years is 14.039 C.
The Variance is 0.08678.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2946.


Rxy 0.6669 Rxy^2 0.4448
TEMP = 13.69613 + (0.005276 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 101.737218
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of October in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.377,
yet it was 14.68. - 1 SIGMA above projection
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6987


Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.700616 * e^(.0003758 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 22.6870


Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.86 0.821 2.79
2003 14.76 0.721 2.45
2007 14.74 0.701 2.38
2006 14.74 0.701 2.38
2004 14.71 0.671 2.28
2008 14.68 0.641 2.18 -
1995 14.60 0.561 1.90
1998 14.58 0.541 1.84
2002 14.57 0.531 1.80
1990 14.51 0.471 1.60
2001 14.50 0.461 1.56
1988 14.47 0.431 1.46
1999 14.43 0.391 1.33
MEAN 14.039 0.000 0.00
1902 13.62 -0.419 -1.42
1892 13.61 -0.429 -1.46
1976 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1908 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1880 13.60 -0.439 -1.49
1897 13.59 -0.449 -1.52
1884 13.58 -0.459 -1.56
1904 13.57 -0.469 -1.59
1898 13.57 -0.469 -1.59
1917 13.55 -0.489 -1.66
1912 13.52 -0.519 -1.76
1903 13.50 -0.539 -1.83
1891 13.36 -0.679 -2.31
1886 13.35 -0.689 -2.34


The most recent 191 continuous months, or 15 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1546 months of data on this data set:
-- 756 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 790 of them are below the norm.
This run of 191 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.



Does that get you excited poopycock?
Your stunted sexuality should not become society's problem.

There is no scientific evidence for cause and effect for CO2 to
climate.


The ice cores prove no correlation.
Temperature statistics prove no correlation.
Laboratory evidence PROVES no correlation.


This leaves only the enjoyment of your freaky little pud as the
motivation for your perverted view of climatology.
If you don't keep it to yourself, freak, you might lose it. Have you
ever thought about that??


KD

Roger - Unlike poor sexually confused Keith, "chemist" responded to
your post (in another message string) with a claim that's at least
purportedly grounded in scientific reasoning and/or evidence.

chemist seems to be saying, yeah, yeah, sure it's signs of a warming
world, but there's no proof that the CO2 is what's doing the warming;
it's really just the oceans.

Do you have any riposte or response to this?

chemist wrote:

Nevertheless any correlation between CO2 and temperature
is basically because the oceans give up CO2 when they are warmed and
CDIAC data proves this.

Roger Coppock wrote:

October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global Land Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.



What happened idiot, wasn't October 2008 the second warmest last
week, now it is 6th?



Why should anybody believe Hansen any more on the second or
third try than on the first?

"john fernbach" wrote in message
...
This dialogue so far is really strange.

Roger Coppock offers one of his usual posts filled with NASA
temperature data and discussions of its statistical significance.
It's the kind of thing that unfortunately (no offense, Roger) often
puts people to sleep.

But kdth = Keith then responds with comments about Roger's "freaky
pud" and [allegedly] "stunted sexuality."

Does anybody in here know whether Keith usually responds with
homoerotic sexual fantasies to other people's discussions about
statistics?
*********************************************
John, the guy (kdth) is obviously queer and trying to repress it. We can see
that isn't working, just killfile the poor queen.

On Nov 15, 3:08*pm, "DeadFrog" wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message

...
This dialogue so far is really strange.

Roger Coppock offers one of his usual posts filled with NASA
temperature data and discussions of its statistical significance.
It's the kind of thing that unfortunately (no offense, Roger) often
puts people to sleep.

But kdth = Keith then responds with comments about Roger's "freaky
pud" and [allegedly] "stunted sexuality."

Does anybody in here know whether Keith usually responds with
homoerotic sexual fantasies to other people's discussions about
statistics?
*********************************************
John, the guy (kdth) is obviously queer and trying to repress it. We can see
that isn't working, just killfile the poor queen.

Well, that's okay - I have nothing against him being queer or
straight, whichever he wants: it's really none of my business. "Life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - rights that are "inalienable"
according to the US Declaration of Independence. However someone
wants to engage in the "pursuit of happiness" is up to him (or her).

But it's really inappropriate to keep dragging sexual fantasies into
debates about climate trends.

No matter what your sexual preference is and no matter what side of
the AGW issue you choose, you just confuse yourself when you get your
sexual fantasies mixed up with your ideas about global warming. It's
sloppy thinking.

On Nov 15, 6:32*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
October 2008 Was 6th Warmest on the 129-year NASA Global Land Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

(cut)
Anthony Watts has an amusing "blink" graph at his
site showing how the temperature from 1880 to around 1978
has "cooled" and temperatures after 1978 have "warmed" retroactively.
If your alleged measurements were accurate to 0.087 C, why the change
in measure "past" temperatures?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
- A. McIntire

On Nov 15, 12:03*pm, john fernbach wrote:
[ . . . ]
Nevertheless any correlation between CO2 and temperature
is basically because the oceans give up CO2 when they are warmed *and
CDIAC data proves this.

Tom lost this debate many times in several other
threads. The oceans are gaining CO2 from the
atmosphere, not the other way around. CDIAC
data show this. Please see:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_088/ndp088.pdf

For more information, Google™ "Ocean Acidification."

Would someone tell Tom that physical sciences do
not deal in "proof"s like mathematics does. I've tried
several times, and failed. One needs special training
to deal with low IQ problems students. Training I've
never had.

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Nov 15, 12:03Â*pm, john fernbach wrote:
[ . . . ]
Nevertheless any correlation between CO2 and temperature
is basically because the oceans give up CO2 when they are warmed Â*and
CDIAC data proves this.

Tom lost this debate many times in several other
threads. The oceans are gaining CO2 from the
atmosphere, not the other way around. CDIAC
data show this. Please see:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_088/ndp088.pdf

For more information, Googleâ„¢ "Ocean Acidification."

Would someone tell Tom that physical sciences do
not deal in "proof"s like mathematics does. I've tried
several times, and failed. One needs special training
to deal with low IQ problems students. Training I've
never had.



What about your teachers? :-)