On Oct 28, 9:03*am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
I M @ good guy wrote:



On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
wrote:

On Oct 28, 5:22 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

Yes, HA HA, it was 0.03 degrees warmer than 1882,
is that a typo, or a joke, as if a thermometer in 1882 could
be read within one whole degree.

Yet another fossil fool failure with a reading comprehension
problem. Read again, Mr. Guy, the data are the means of
multiple thermometers.

Australia must have been sweating, 3 hundredths
of a degree.

[below nonsense not deleted]

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of millions of readings
taken at stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data
are corrected for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean September temperature over the last 130 years is 14.023
C. The Variance is 0.1214.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3484.

Rxy 0.5073 Rxy^2 0.2573
TEMP = 13.71464 + (0.00471 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 44.355302
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999 (9 nines)
The month of September in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.327,
yet it was 14.85. - 1.5 SIGMA above the trend,
therefore, the warming accelerated.
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7605

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.721718 * e^(.0003341 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7380

Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 --
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
2008 14.80 0.777 2.23
1996 14.65 0.627 1.80
2007 14.64 0.617 1.77
2003 14.63 0.607 1.74
2001 14.63 0.607 1.74
2005 14.62 0.597 1.71
1989 14.61 0.587 1.68
1983 14.57 0.547 1.57
2002 14.55 0.527 1.51
1988 14.55 0.527 1.51
2006 14.49 0.467 1.34
1991 14.48 0.457 1.31
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1917 13.58 -0.443 -1.27
1968 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1954 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1964 13.54 -0.483 -1.39
1931 13.53 -0.493 -1.42
1923 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1906 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1903 13.51 -0.513 -1.47
1902 13.48 -0.543 -1.56
1892 13.44 -0.583 -1.67
1887 13.38 -0.643 -1.85
1925 13.29 -0.733 -2.10
1935 13.27 -0.753 -2.16
1894 13.26 -0.763 -2.19
1891 13.13 -0.893 -2.56

The most recent 40 continuous months, or 3 years and 4 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1557 months of data on this data set:
-- 791 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 766 of them are below the norm.

With the level of statistical comprehension thes ignoramuses are
showing, don't even think of explaining the occurrence, significance
and treatment of outliers in a data set, Roger.

* * * * Sure, check the numbers at NASA and see nothing
that matches.

* * * * Using anomalies and corrections and adjustments
and corrected adjustments and adjusted corrections
must be confusing Woger or the adjusters.

* * * * And you parrot anything left of far left.

* *As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.

You really should stop replying to these kiddies. They're only doing
it to try and wind up the adults on this NG

On Oct 28, 1:51*pm, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

Yes, HA HA, it was 0.03 degrees warmer than 1882,
is that a typo, or a joke, as if a thermometer in 1882 could
be read within one whole degree.

Yet another fossil fool failure with a reading comprehension
problem. *Read again, Mr. Guy, the data are the means of
multiple thermometers.

And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to two
decimal places. *When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or possibly 0.5
degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the accuracy of the data.
I think you need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.

Just to illustrate how idiotic your reply is, try figuring the answer
to the following:
To the nearest year, individual ages of 11 people of my immediate
acquaintance are 67,66,69,71,70,63,67,70,69,66,68. So what is the
"age" of this group of people? N.b. the raw data is accurate, but
measured with a precision of +/- 6 mo.

You should be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question
before you even think of enrolling for your stats course.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:51:22 -0400, "Cat_in_awe"
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

Yes, HA HA, it was 0.03 degrees warmer than 1882,
is that a typo, or a joke, as if a thermometer in 1882 could
be read within one whole degree.

Yet another fossil fool failure with a reading comprehension
problem. Read again, Mr. Guy, the data are the means of
multiple thermometers.


And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to two
decimal places. When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or possibly 0.5
degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the accuracy of the data.
I think you need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.


Nah, woger is sure that 5,000 sleepy people
guessing at how cold it got before they got up,
can be accurate to two decimal points if they
are all averaged together.

Statistically some will guess high and some
will guess low, so it all evens out.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in
message
...
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130
YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern
Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.

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



Hey Woger -
THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE IS NOT THE GLOBE!




Warmest Regards

Bon_0

"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

Rank of the months of September

Year Temp C Anomaly Z score

2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 --

1882 14.82 0.797 2.29







Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"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

Rank of the months of September

Year Temp C Anomaly Z score

2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 --

1882 14.82 0.797 2.29

Rank of the months of September

Year Temp C Anomaly Z score

2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 --

1882 14.82 0.797 2.29







Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"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

Ouroboros Rex wrote:

Falcon wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:

Falcon wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

On Oct 28, 12:53 am, Last Post wrote:
[ . . . ]
If it comes from NASA those numbers are
meaningless since September is the beginning
of spring in the Southern hemisphere.

September was beginning of Spring in the Southern Hemisphere for
every one of the last 130 years. NASA data say this September was
the warmest in all those 130 years.

Global SST anomalies fell slighty between August and September, the
majority of the decline in the Northern Hemisphere.

September 2009 Southern Hemisphere SST Anomalies:
Monthly Change = -0.019 deg C
http://i34.tinypic.com/5ocuw4.png

The Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OISST) are
available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive &
Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite

Thanks, that's sea surface temperature.

IPCC AR4 has something to say about SSTs.

I suspect it does.

It does. It's pretty well connected according to the IPCC. Their sea level
rise predictions are based on global atmospheric temperature predictions.
The predicted rise in global air temperature (but see UAH below) leads to a
rise in global SST and a corresponding rise in sea levels.

Neither AR4 or SSTs are the subject, do you have
anything on the September southern hemisphere in general? SSTs have been
rising predicably with the new record having been set this past June.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...lob-jun-pg.gif

Curious. I could be mistaken but it doesn't appear show the dip to near zero
global SST anomaly recorded in the NOMADS dataset for 2000. see
http://i33.tinypic.com/33e0vao.png I'd like to see the data on which they
base this analysis. It doesn't look like they used the NOMADS data
(published by the NOAA) at all, unless it's been heavily corrected for some
reason.

SST readings were particularly suspect prior to the start of the Argos Buoy
project in 2003. Even now they're considered inaccurate enough to be subject
to 'correction' by the Argos team prior to release.

You might be interested in this.
UAH Globally averaged temps - lower atmosphere.
http://tinypic.com/r/mwql39/4

Not sure about the southern hemisphere alone. Do you mean land-based station
temperature, lower atmosphere, or SST?

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

On Oct 28, 5:12*am, JohnM wrote:
[ . . . ]
With the level of statistical comprehension thes ignoramuses are
showing, don't even think of explaining the occurrence, significance
and treatment of outliers in a data set, Roger.

Yes, I do have to scale back the procedures use
with this crowd of fossil fools. I keep hoping that
one day there'll be an intelligent discussion,

For example, the 'known variance' technique,
using the variance of the entire data set to
examine the trends of more recent data.
Among the informed, that would quickly put
an end to claims 'cooling during the last 10
years.' This group isn't that mathematically
sophisticated however.

On Oct 28, 12:51*pm, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:
[ . . . ]
And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to two
decimal places. *When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or possibly 0.5
degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the accuracy of the data.
I think you need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.

An introductory course in statistics would teach you
how to calculate the "Standard error of the mean."
The inverse of the square root of the number of samples
is a small fraction when there are thousands of samples.
Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error_(statistics)