On Oct 28, 1:51*pm, "Cat_in_awe" wrote:
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.

And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to two
decimal places. *When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or possibly 0.5
degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the accuracy of the data.
I think you need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.

Just to illustrate how idiotic your reply is, try figuring the answer
to the following:
To the nearest year, individual ages of 11 people of my immediate
acquaintance are 67,66,69,71,70,63,67,70,69,66,68. So what is the
"age" of this group of people? N.b. the raw data is accurate, but
measured with a precision of +/- 6 mo.

You should be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question
before you even think of enrolling for your stats course.