On Mar 14, 9:21 am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:



On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, 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.

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school.

Pity you never moved on to something to something more realistic.

When are you going to learn it.


For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree.

Seems you forgot all of it immediately the exam was over. Not uncommon
in A students in my experience. They have a facility for learning to
the examination by cramming in the last few hours, just as certain
teachers are able to teach to the examination. Sorry to hear you've
been a victim of that crazy pedagogy.

A slightly more parsimonious explanation is that you are not being
straight with us. This is common on Usenet and seems a distinct
possibility in your case, as you seem to believe that isolated records
in a notoriously scedastic environment can actually have
interpretation placed upon them. Prove me wrong by posting some
conventional statistical analysis of the annual global temperatures
used by Roger Coppock *but* assuming heteroscadisticity amongst the
data. This analysis should indicate significantly (95% level) falling
temperatures during the past 10 years.But it won't of course as I've
already done it and checked.

What is your qualification?

Irrelevant Q.