
April 9th 08, 02:48 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Sep 2007
Posts: 198
|
|
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.
matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:42, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:22 pm, matt_sykes wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:35 am, 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.
UHI adjusted? Bull. Looking at satelite images and adjusting for
light intensity is a joke. How about the weather station in France
on the central reservation of a motorway I passed the other day? No
lights around that station at all,, but put in some road works and
have a traffic jam and the temp is going to shoot up.
If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction,
you are more than welcome to present them here. Until
then the data presented above are a better indication of
reality than your fantasies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
See my earlier response.
You mean, your off-the-top-of-the-head made-up crap.
|