On Apr 8, 10:52*pm, Annabel Lee
wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

In spite of the Carbon fuel industry's huge 'investment' in
'public relations,' global mean surface temperatures continue
to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean March temperature over the last 129 years is 13.998 C.
The Variance is 0.08307.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2882.

Rxy 0.79294 * Rxy^2 0.62875
TEMP = 13.599444 + (0.006137 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 215.08622
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999 (28 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of March in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.391,
* * * * * * * * yet it was 14.67. - 1 SIGMA above projected
The sum of the residuals is 17.53310

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.60454 * e^(.0004358 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 17.43215

*Rank of the months of March
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2002 * 14.84 * * 0.842 * * 2.92
2005 * 14.70 * * 0.702 * * 2.43
2008 * 14.67 * * 0.672 * * 2.33 --
1990 * 14.67 * * 0.672 * * 2.33
2007 * 14.60 * * 0.602 * * 2.09
2004 * 14.59 * * 0.592 * * 2.05
1998 * 14.56 * * 0.562 * * 1.95
2006 * 14.55 * * 0.552 * * 1.91
2001 * 14.54 * * 0.542 * * 1.88
2003 * 14.51 * * 0.512 * * 1.78
1988 * 14.47 * * 0.472 * * 1.64
2000 * 14.46 * * 0.462 * * 1.60
1997 * 14.46 * * 0.462 * * 1.60
MEAN * 13.998 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1960 * 13.68 * *-0.318 * *-1.10
1916 * 13.68 * *-0.318 * *-1.10
1886 * 13.67 * *-0.328 * *-1.14
1910 * 13.66 * *-0.338 * *-1.17
1892 * 13.66 * *-0.338 * *-1.17
1913 * 13.65 * *-0.348 * *-1.21
1912 * 13.65 * *-0.348 * *-1.21
1887 * 13.62 * *-0.378 * *-1.31
1909 * 13.55 * *-0.448 * *-1.56
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.458 * *-1.59
1917 * 13.53 * *-0.468 * *-1.63
1911 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66
1908 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66
1898 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66

The most recent 169 continuous months, or 14 years and 1 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1539 months of data on this data set:
*-- 659 of them are at or above the norm.
*-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 169 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.

Please don't take this the wrong way since I know you're up against a
lot of people whose minds are made up. *I'm genuinely undecided.

So, why is one month signficiant?

By itself, just one month isn't significant.
With a 129 year history like that above, it
is instructive. Add to that similar analyses
that I've done every month for years now and
you have a very useful tool.