On Oct 28, 9:03*am, "Ouroboros Rex" wrote:
I M @ good guy wrote:



On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
wrote:

On Oct 28, 5:22 am, 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.

Australia must have been sweating, 3 hundredths
of a degree.

[below nonsense not deleted]

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.

With the level of statistical comprehension thes ignoramuses are
showing, don't even think of explaining the occurrence, significance
and treatment of outliers in a data set, Roger.

* * * * Sure, check the numbers at NASA and see nothing
that matches.

* * * * Using anomalies and corrections and adjustments
and corrected adjustments and adjusted corrections
must be confusing Woger or the adjusters.

* * * * And you parrot anything left of far left.

* *As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.

You really should stop replying to these kiddies. They're only doing
it to try and wind up the adults on this NG