On Oct 28, 2:21*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:51:22 -0400, "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.

* * * * Nah, woger is sure that 5,000 sleepy people
guessing at how cold it got before they got up,
can be accurate to two decimal points if they
are all averaged together.

* * * * Statistically some will guess high and some
will guess low, so it all evens out.

Thanks for your deep and penetrating analysis of the science.
Shouldn't you be publishing in a respected journal somewhere.