These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect. Unlike other weather and
climate data currently coming from the United States, no
government censors added 'spin' to this report.

The Mean January temperature over the last 126 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.13566.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3683.

Rxy 0.654638 Rxy^2 0.428551
TEMP = 13.575548 + (0.006629 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 92.992086
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
The month of January in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.411,
yet it was 14.85. -- 1.2 SIGMA above the linear
projection!
The sum of the residuals is 25.788452

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.575858 * e^(.0004751 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 25.716902 (Those who have followed this
item both closely and with an open mind will note that an important
trend continues here. The rest needn't waste bandwidth with their
trolling)

Rank of the months of January
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.85 0.853 2.32 --
2002 14.81 0.813 2.21
2003 14.80 0.803 2.18
1882 14.79 0.793 2.15
1998 14.64 0.643 1.75
1988 14.61 0.613 1.67
2004 14.58 0.583 1.58
1981 14.57 0.573 1.56
2001 14.57 0.573 1.56
1999 14.55 0.553 1.50
1932 14.52 0.523 1.42
1990 14.46 0.463 1.26
1992 14.45 0.453 1.23
MEAN 13.997 0.000 0.00
1900 13.54 -0.457 -1.24
1917 13.52 -0.477 -1.29
1892 13.49 -0.507 -1.38
1895 13.48 -0.517 -1.40
1911 13.48 -0.517 -1.40
1881 13.47 -0.527 -1.43
1918 13.47 -0.527 -1.43
1887 13.46 -0.537 -1.46
1904 13.45 -0.547 -1.48
1885 13.43 -0.567 -1.54
1894 13.38 -0.617 -1.67
1909 13.30 -0.697 -1.89
1891 13.22 -0.777 -2.11
1893 12.47 -1.527 -4.14


The most recent 146 continuous months, or 12 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1501 months of data on this data set:
-- 716 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 785 of them are below the norm.
This run of 146 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.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect. Unlike other weather and

This type of data and its comparisons are pretty inconclusive. However,
paleotemperature data show things don't stay the same for very long, and
it's better if things are getting warmer than if they were getting colder.

Please provide data and scientific literature citations to support
these statements.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:12:33 GMT, "BillC"
wrote:


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
roups.com...
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect. Unlike other weather and

This type of data and its comparisons are pretty inconclusive. However,
paleotemperature data show things don't stay the same for very long, and
it's better if things are getting warmer than if they were getting colder.

The observation from the data is accurate. The data makes itself
makes no conclusion so it's nonconlusive not inconclusive.

To jump from there to a reliance on paleotemperature data is fiction.
There is no such thing as paleotemperature data - there are indirect
interpretations that relate to climate and change.

The same paleo data and strata has, over the years, been borrowed for
a variety, and sometimes contradictory, conlcusions:- extinctions,
ice-ages, extra-terrestrial impacts, and atmospheric poison
catastrophes.

It's interesting and useful to see if interpreted paleo data can offer
additional possibilities, but it is dangerous science to say
fragmented pieces of the earth's jigsaw puzzle represent detailed
weather measurement or conclusive evidence of global environmental
conditions.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Please provide data and scientific literature citations to support
these statements.

Learn about paleoclimate as derived from CO2 from ice cores and O2 from
seafloor seds. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's better to be
warming than dropping out of it into an ice age.

So, you provide not one item of data or even a
single reference. Yet more fossil fool bluster and
blessed ignorance. I'll stick with mainstream
science and 0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
confidences of nonzero correlations, which are,
approximately, facts. That is a vastly superior
world view.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
So, you provide not one item of data or even a
single reference. Yet more fossil fool bluster and
blessed ignorance. I'll stick with mainstream
science and 0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)
confidences of nonzero correlations, which are,
approximately, facts. That is a vastly superior
world view.

You're the fool, especially if you think the industrialized world is going
to shut down on the basis of what are probably minor fluctuation that may or
may not be be partly influenced by manmade emissions.

If you think climatological theories of any kind have "0.9999999999999999 "
levels of confidence - YOU ARE AN INCOMPETENT.

Now, go learn about paleoclimate as derived from CO2 from ice cores and O2
from
seafloor seds. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's better to be
warming than dropping out of it into an ice age.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:36:21 GMT, "BillC"
wrote:


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
roups.com...
Please provide data and scientific literature citations to support
these statements.

Learn about paleoclimate as derived from CO2 from ice cores and O2 from
seafloor seds. We're in an interglacial warming period. It's better to be
warming than dropping out of it into an ice age.

Shuffling between paleotemperature and paleoclimate is invalid.

Ice cores are good, but too much conclusion from too little evidence
can be a beartrap. Imagine someone investigating summer earth samples
from the Great Plains. Would he guess that Europe was going through
massive floods at the same time.

Same with the deal about inter-glacial warming period. That's a
suggestion from the climate record ... but we may have just completed
our exit from glaciation periods, right?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect. Unlike other weather and
climate data currently coming from the United States, no
government censors added 'spin' to this report.


Satellites to measure temperature evenly across the Earth's surface have
been operational since 1979. Data prior to 1979 relies on surface weather
stations and weather balloons, which are not evenly spread around the world.
Good records exist for North America and Europe over a period of about 100
years, but there have never been many stations for the 70 per cent of the
Earth covered by water, or the 38 per cent of the rest that is desert or
mountains.

This means that scientists cannot say for sure what the average temperature
of the Earth was in 1900 - and the problem gets worse the further back we
go. If the starting point data for a model is wrong, even slightly wrong, it
could have a major impact on the outcome. Worse, it is impossible to test
the model. If you want to see how good a model is, perhaps the best way to
test it is to start it from as long ago as possible, and see if the results
match what really happened. This doesn't work if we don't know what really
happened more than two or three decades back.

As Tim Ball, Kenneth Green and Steven Scroeder, three North American climate
researchers, note: 'Surface temperature records for the world are inadequate
to determine the average annual temperature of the earth. The uncertainty in
the global "normal" surface temperature - estimated to be 13.9 degrees
Celsius...a decrease from an earlier estimate of 15 degrees Celsius... is
almost twice as large as the estimated global warming in the last 100
years.' (3)

Perhaps these models provide us with insights into what we don't know, but
they can't predict the future of our climate - at least, not yet. When we
have more powerful computers, greater understanding of the physical
processes involved and a longer history of good data, it's likely that
models will provide better predictions.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8CF.htm

The UHI effect is cobbled together with a half assed formula based on
population. Not an accurate picture.

"BillC" wrote in message
ink.net...

If you think climatological theories of any kind have "0.9999999999999999
" levels of confidence - YOU ARE AN INCOMPETENT.

Well said.