November was 2ND Warmest in 125 Northern Hemisphere Years!

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the northern
hemisphere over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean November temperature over the last 125 years is 13.978 C.
The Variance is 0.17104.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.4136.

Rxy 0.674066 Rxy^2 0.454365
TEMP = 13.491348 + (0.007726 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 123 F = 102.425225
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of November in the year 2004,
is linearly projected to be 14.457,
yet it was 15.05. -- 1.4 SIGMA above the linear
projection.
The sum of the residuals is 32.60855

Power law least squares fit: -- lower residuals than linear &
exponentials!
TEMP = 12.889648 * (YEAR-1879)^0.020915
The sum of the residuals is 32.422966

Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 15.08 1.102 2.66
2004 15.05 1.072 2.59 --
2002 14.91 0.932 2.25
2003 14.84 0.862 2.08
1998 14.69 0.712 1.72
1999 14.69 0.712 1.72
1995 14.66 0.682 1.65
1990 14.62 0.642 1.55
1997 14.62 0.642 1.55
1983 14.59 0.612 1.48
1934 14.54 0.562 1.36
1994 14.49 0.512 1.24
1996 14.46 0.482 1.17
MEAN 13.978 0.000 0.00
1907 13.39 -0.588 -1.42
1889 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1894 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1898 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1887 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1902 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1883 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1884 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1890 13.31 -0.668 -1.62
1908 13.25 -0.728 -1.76
1892 13.24 -0.738 -1.78
1891 13.22 -0.758 -1.83
1880 12.98 -0.998 -2.41


The most recent 132 continuous months, or 11 years and 0 months,
on this NH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1499 months of data on this data set:
-- 744 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 755 of them are below the norm.
This run of 132 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 or meteor impact could stop this warming trend
for a couple of years, otherwise expect it to continue.

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research! And it sure doesn't convince anyone with the background
to evaluate your "global warming" fantasy!

How about a more sensible approach to assessing your "global warming"
chimera? Evaluate the effect of the much more plentiful atmospheric water
vapor on fluctuations in atmospheric heat content while considering the
beneficial effects additional CO2 would actually have on Earth's
beneficence.

Got it, Roger? It's time for change!

WDA

end



"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
November was 2ND Warmest in 125 Northern Hemisphere Years!

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the northern
hemisphere over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean November temperature over the last 125 years is 13.978 C.
The Variance is 0.17104.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.4136.

Rxy 0.674066 Rxy^2 0.454365
TEMP = 13.491348 + (0.007726 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 123 F = 102.425225
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of November in the year 2004,
is linearly projected to be 14.457,
yet it was 15.05. -- 1.4 SIGMA above the linear
projection.
The sum of the residuals is 32.60855

Power law least squares fit: -- lower residuals than linear &
exponentials!
TEMP = 12.889648 * (YEAR-1879)^0.020915
The sum of the residuals is 32.422966

Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 15.08 1.102 2.66
2004 15.05 1.072 2.59 --
2002 14.91 0.932 2.25
2003 14.84 0.862 2.08
1998 14.69 0.712 1.72
1999 14.69 0.712 1.72
1995 14.66 0.682 1.65
1990 14.62 0.642 1.55
1997 14.62 0.642 1.55
1983 14.59 0.612 1.48
1934 14.54 0.562 1.36
1994 14.49 0.512 1.24
1996 14.46 0.482 1.17
MEAN 13.978 0.000 0.00
1907 13.39 -0.588 -1.42
1889 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1894 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1898 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1887 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1902 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1883 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1884 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1890 13.31 -0.668 -1.62
1908 13.25 -0.728 -1.76
1892 13.24 -0.738 -1.78
1891 13.22 -0.758 -1.83
1880 12.98 -0.998 -2.41


The most recent 132 continuous months, or 11 years and 0 months,
on this NH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1499 months of data on this data set:
-- 744 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 755 of them are below the norm.
This run of 132 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 or meteor impact could stop this warming trend
for a couple of years, otherwise expect it to continue.

As usual, WDA, you have the facts wrong.
My post here is not a newspaper article.

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research!

As usual, WDA, you have the facts wrong.
My post here is not a newspaper article.

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research!

As usual, WDA, you have the facts wrong.
My post here is not a newspaper article.

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research!


Evaluate the effect of the much more plentiful atmospheric water
vapor on fluctuations in atmospheric heat content while considering
the
beneficial effects additional CO2 would actually have on Earth's
beneficence.

Why don't you do this, WDA?

In article , says...

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research! And it sure doesn't convince anyone with the background
to evaluate your "global warming" fantasy!

How about a more sensible approach to assessing your "global warming"
chimera? Evaluate the effect of the much more plentiful atmospheric water
vapor on fluctuations in atmospheric heat content while considering the
beneficial effects additional CO2 would actually have on Earth's
beneficence.

Got it, Roger? It's time for change!

WDA

end

In case Roger is tired of responding to your endless errors, please be
aware that anthropogenic Global Warming is not about "atmospheric heat content".
AGW is a problem in radiation HEAT TRANSFER. And, once again, the models
DO include atmospheric water vapor, the concentration of which is a function
of temperature. Thus, increasing CO2 will warm the planet, which then
increases the water vapor content, which further increases temeprature.
It's called positive feedback...

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
November was 2ND Warmest in 125 Northern Hemisphere Years!

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the northern
hemisphere over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean November temperature over the last 125 years is 13.978 C.
The Variance is 0.17104.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.4136.

Rxy 0.674066 Rxy^2 0.454365
TEMP = 13.491348 + (0.007726 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 123 F = 102.425225
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999 (17 nines)
The month of November in the year 2004,
is linearly projected to be 14.457,
yet it was 15.05. -- 1.4 SIGMA above the linear
projection.
The sum of the residuals is 32.60855

Power law least squares fit: -- lower residuals than linear &
exponentials!
TEMP = 12.889648 * (YEAR-1879)^0.020915
The sum of the residuals is 32.422966


Very good, Roger. There are, of course, two points to be made:

1) Once again, the power law sum of residuals is not statistically different
than the linear sum of residuals.

2) If you still insist that I am wrong on number 1, I maintain that you will
not like the outcome of your own equation. Plot it up ... it clearly shows
that temperature increases are "tailing off", meaning that they are rising
at a slower rate than the linear prediction. You have painted yourself into
a corner on this one ... if you insist on keeping the power law
relationship, you are bound to declare that doomsday is not upon us.

And by the way, Roger. If you care to try a logarithmic fit to the data,
you will see that your power law is a mere renaming of a logarithmic
relationship. I have no doubt that in your readings of this NG, you have
been told that many times (e.g., that temperature increases should show a
logarithmic increase with increasing CO2 concentrations). You are one small
step away from verifying this for yourself. Go ahead ... take that small
step.


Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 15.08 1.102 2.66
2004 15.05 1.072 2.59 --
2002 14.91 0.932 2.25
2003 14.84 0.862 2.08
1998 14.69 0.712 1.72
1999 14.69 0.712 1.72
1995 14.66 0.682 1.65
1990 14.62 0.642 1.55
1997 14.62 0.642 1.55
1983 14.59 0.612 1.48
1934 14.54 0.562 1.36
1994 14.49 0.512 1.24
1996 14.46 0.482 1.17
MEAN 13.978 0.000 0.00
1907 13.39 -0.588 -1.42
1889 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1894 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1898 13.37 -0.608 -1.47
1887 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1902 13.36 -0.618 -1.49
1883 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1884 13.34 -0.638 -1.54
1890 13.31 -0.668 -1.62
1908 13.25 -0.728 -1.76
1892 13.24 -0.738 -1.78
1891 13.22 -0.758 -1.83
1880 12.98 -0.998 -2.41


The most recent 132 continuous months, or 11 years and 0 months,
on this NH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1499 months of data on this data set:
-- 744 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 755 of them are below the norm.
This run of 132 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 or meteor impact could stop this warming trend
for a couple of years, otherwise expect it to continue.

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research! And it sure doesn't convince anyone with the
background
to evaluate your "global warming" fantasy!

How about a more sensible approach to assessing your "global warming"
chimera? Evaluate the effect of the much more plentiful atmospheric water
vapor on fluctuations in atmospheric heat content while considering the
beneficial effects additional CO2 would actually have on Earth's
beneficence.

Got it, Roger? It's time for change!

WDA

end

In case Roger is tired of responding to your endless errors, please be
aware that anthropogenic Global Warming is not about "atmospheric heat
content".
AGW is a problem in radiation HEAT TRANSFER. And, once again, the models
DO include atmospheric water vapor, the concentration of which is a
function
of temperature. Thus, increasing CO2 will warm the planet, which then
increases the water vapor content, which further increases temeprature.
It's called positive feedback...

Eric,

don't take the simple minded approach on this one. You are once again
alluding to the "positive feedback, we're all going to boil" scenario.
Water vapor isn't just a greenhouse gas. It's also an excellent heat
transfer medium in its own right. What is lost in terms of IR radiant heat
transfer can easily be made up by convective heat transfer and condensation
high in the atmosphere. If this wasn't the case, Earth would have
experienced a runaway temperature increase long ago.

In article , says...


"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

It's time for a new hobby, Roger! Clipping newspaper articles is NOT
scientific research! And it sure doesn't convince anyone with the
background
to evaluate your "global warming" fantasy!

How about a more sensible approach to assessing your "global warming"
chimera? Evaluate the effect of the much more plentiful atmospheric water
vapor on fluctuations in atmospheric heat content while considering the
beneficial effects additional CO2 would actually have on Earth's
beneficence.

Got it, Roger? It's time for change!

WDA

end

In case Roger is tired of responding to your endless errors, please be
aware that anthropogenic Global Warming is not about "atmospheric heat
content".
AGW is a problem in radiation HEAT TRANSFER. And, once again, the models
DO include atmospheric water vapor, the concentration of which is a
function
of temperature. Thus, increasing CO2 will warm the planet, which then
increases the water vapor content, which further increases temeprature.
It's called positive feedback...

Eric,

don't take the simple minded approach on this one. You are once again
alluding to the "positive feedback, we're all going to boil" scenario.
Water vapor isn't just a greenhouse gas. It's also an excellent heat
transfer medium in its own right. What is lost in terms of IR radiant heat
transfer can easily be made up by convective heat transfer and condensation
high in the atmosphere. If this wasn't the case, Earth would have
experienced a runaway temperature increase long ago.

Yes, it's part of the convection process as well as a greenhouse gas.
However, I think that on a global basis, the net effect of increased
temperature will be more H2O in the air, thus an enhancement of the warming
due to increased CO2 alone. This is a positive feedback in the true sense of
the word. Of course, this positive feedback does not imply runaway warming.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:24:28 +0000 (UTC), (Eric Swanson)
wrote:

Of course, this positive feedback does not imply runaway warming.

"... if there are other negative feedbacks in the system that will arise to
eventually counter it in a new equilibrium."

Yes?

Jon