Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Tom P wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Zorro wrote:

On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, 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

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.
Remember, this is Roger's data, I didn't make it up.

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

OH NO, September 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, is 0.03 C warmer
than September 1882 in the Southern Hemisphere.

In 127 years, we have warmed by 0.03 C.

Quick, we have to do something fast, before the temperature drops
below what it was in 1882. Quickly everybody, generate some more CO2.
See below for an explanation of your foolishness...

I'm looking and looking, but can't see any explanation...

More CO2 won't affect temperature.
There is no link between temperature and CO2.

And Roger et al is still not able to explain, where all that doooooming
warming is coming from but from a ****ty peace of computer software.

I looked at the GISS data using Open Office spreadsheet and sure enough,
the results are the same as Roger's. Peter M is welcome to repeat the
analysis himself using any other commercial package like Excel.

If you plot the data out, several things become apparent.
Firstly, the trend is monotonous, there is a continuous linear rise in
temperature of around 0.04 per decade.
Second, the scattering of the data points is very large from 1880-1890
then becomes steadily more stable.
Thirdly, data prior to 1880 is missing - there is none available to give
the DJF and D-N fields.

These last two observations suggest that the 1880-1890 data are based on
a very small number of recording stations. Bear in mind that in the
19th century, this would be someone looking at the thermometer and
writing down a value to the nearest whole degree. In other words, what
we see in the data for the first decade is simply digital noise caused
by averaging a small number of discrete values.

That means that singling out and comparing a single 1880 data point with
the 2009 data point is simply comparing a white noise signal peak with a
highly reliable value - totally useless and misleading.

... but only 91% defective data, you used to draw your conclusions.

How much significance would you give your pleadings?

Peter, you still haven't told us the result of your analysis.

tunderbar wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:21 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!

That is only half the globe. So does that mean it's semi-hemi-quasi-
maybe-global warming? Is that consistent with what the IPCC and Al
Gore has promised us?

No problem, here's the northern hemisphe
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt

Just average the two together and you get the whole planet.



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

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.

b.o.n.z.o wrote:
"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!



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
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.

Yeah, we've watched the "rise" since 10 years.
Please tell the climate to obey Roger... NOW!

http://img.umweltluege.de/h/award.jpg

--
[Roger Coppock, wannabe statistician, in alt.global-warming]
Though I do use R a lot, these computations are not done with R.
This output comes from a 600-line BASIC program I wrote.
You really want to make us believe, a homebrew 600 line BASIC program
can
replace all the datacenters for Global Climate Models?

We're still waiting for you to post your analysis using Excel, Open
Office or any other spreadsheet program, Herr Muehlbauer.

On Oct 28, 4:42*am, 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.

•• And you believe James Hansen???

**1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's
surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do
not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from
1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the
weather station from a maximum/minimum
thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the
average. No statistician could agree that a plausible
average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is
more than the claimed "global warming.

**2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the
earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No
statistician could accept an "average" based on
such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be
"corrected"

On Oct 28, 11:34*am, "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.

•• IPCC AR4 has been thoroughly debunked.

On Oct 28, 2:21*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
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.

Thanks for your deep and penetrating analysis of the science.
Shouldn't you be publishing in a respected journal somewhere.

wrote:

On Oct 28, 11:34 am, "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.

•• IPCC AR4 has been thoroughly debunked.

I hate the word debunked: it smacks of the kind of ridiculous blanket
assertion that typifies the average AGW alarmist article and, ironically,
most of the Hansoneque scientific research papers that the media love these
days.

However, it's true that IPCC 2007 and its aftermath has led to an erroneous
tendency to focus on the reduction of CO2 emissions as sure-fire method of
'controlling' climate change; a belief that has little or no reliable
scientific basis. It's fun watching some scientists come up with ever more
convoluted ways of explaining the real world's increasing divergence from
IPCC CO2-heavy climate models. What is not so funny are the ridiculously
hysterical doom-laden predictions like this one from Save the Children
http://xrl.us/bf2c4o (Link to www.guardian.co.uk).

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

"Falcon" wrote in message ...

wrote:

On Oct 28, 11:34 am, "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.

.. IPCC AR4 has been thoroughly debunked.

I hate the word debunked: it smacks of the kind of ridiculous blanket assertion that typifies the average AGW alarmist article
and, ironically, most of the Hansoneque scientific research papers that the media love these days.

"debunked" : "To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims".
Sounds like the correct word to use for falsified papers with exaggerated claims.


However, it's true that IPCC 2007 and its aftermath has led to an erroneous tendency to focus on the reduction of CO2 emissions as
sure-fire method of 'controlling' climate change; a belief that has little or no reliable scientific basis.

Really ? And may I inquire as to how you drew that conclusion ?
The IPCC used thousands of peer-reviewed papers to obtain their assessment on all aspects of human-induced climate change.
How many peer-reviewed papers can you come up that are substantially divergent from their assessment ?

It's fun watching some scientists come up with ever more convoluted ways of explaining the real world's increasing divergence from
IPCC CO2-heavy climate models.

Where did you see this ?
Any reference ?