March 14th 09, 02:51 AM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jul 2008
Posts: 21
|
|
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASAglobal record.
On Mar 13, 12:57*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
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 globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Thanks, Roger.
|