Fossil fools fart.
Meanwhile, global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at hundreds of stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 126 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean March temperature over the last 126 years is 13.990 C.
The Variance is 0.07772.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2788.

Rxy 0.435946 Rxy^2 0.190049
TEMP = 13.77774 + (0.003341 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 29.095712
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999664

The month of March in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.199,
yet it was 14.69. -- 1.8 SIGMA above the linear
projection! (How about that Charlew2?)
The sum of the residuals is 25.221433

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.776521 * e^(.0002389 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 25.196173

Rank of the months of March
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.69 0.700 2.51 --
1889 14.59 0.600 2.15
1988 14.58 0.590 2.12
1980 14.52 0.530 1.90
1998 14.52 0.530 1.90
1882 14.46 0.470 1.69
1914 14.46 0.470 1.69
2003 14.46 0.470 1.69
2002 14.45 0.460 1.65
2004 14.43 0.440 1.58
1915 14.42 0.430 1.54
1987 14.35 0.360 1.29
1984 14.34 0.350 1.26
MEAN 13.990 0.000 0.00
1976 13.67 -0.320 -1.15
1913 13.66 -0.330 -1.18
1906 13.65 -0.340 -1.22
1910 13.65 -0.340 -1.22
1911 13.62 -0.370 -1.33
1960 13.60 -0.390 -1.40
1895 13.59 -0.400 -1.43
1888 13.58 -0.410 -1.47
1929 13.51 -0.480 -1.72
1893 13.49 -0.500 -1.79
1891 13.48 -0.510 -1.83
1918 13.44 -0.550 -1.97
1917 13.39 -0.600 -2.15
1885 13.34 -0.650 -2.33

The most recent 53 continuous months, or 4 years and 5 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1503 months of data on this data set:
-- 736 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 767 of them are below the norm.
This run of 53 months above the norm is the result of a warming world.

"Degrees of Freedom = 124 " This does not look good. More degrees
of freedom means more chances to screw up.

Yes, the data are corrected for the urban heat island effect. " - you
mean to tell me Roger that but for the UHI effect, the temperatures
would be GREATER? Wow. What a damning admission. I thought our
friends Pearson/Peterson proved there is no measurable UHI.

What else do you guys have wrong?

RL

ROTFLMSAO!!!!!!!

Take a college course in statistics, and find out what a "Degree of
Freedom" is.
Try googleing that phrase and "F test," and "Non-zero Correlation."

And forget about understanding UHI if you don't know basic statistics.

You've become very mean spirited over the last few weeks. Or maybe you
were always this way and I did not notice till now.

Moron, I got an "A" in stats when I took it ages ago. Truth is, I'd
forgotten about correlation. Refreshed my memory, thanks for the
keywords, below is an excerpt.

Now onto the question you dodged, Roger the Dodger: UHI. Looks like
GW quacks "adjust for" UHI effects--which means they are acknowledging
they exist, which contradicts, dick, the Pearson/Peterson studies that
UHI is too small to detect.

Gotacha!

RL

For instance, suppose that we estimate the number of applications for
admission that UK receives during a year as a function of the
basketball team’s win record, the football team’s win record, UK
tuition rates, and UK’s position in college rankings. We have one
observation per year for the last 20 years. Including these four
independent variables we get a R2 of .65. This says that 65 percent of
the variation in number of applications across years can be explained
by our explanatory variables. Then we add one additional independent
variable: the number of heads of cattle sold annually at the local
stock yard for the past 20 years. Although it is highly unlikely that
this variable explains UK applications, R2 will actually increase some
due to the design of the formula.


This is due to a problem in the structure of the formula for R2.
Recall that the coefficient of determination may be written as:

(1)

As we add additional explanatory variables, SST is unaffected while SSE
declines just from increasing the number of X variables. This insures
that the coefficient of determination will rise. (Even if we have not
explained variation in Y by adding the new independent variable.)


The adjusted R2 is an alternative measure that accounts for the
problems related to using plain R2. There are numerous ways of writing
the formula:

(5)

The adjusted R2 is called the “adjusted” value because it has been
adjusted for something called the degrees of freedom.

Degrees of freedom are measured as n - k - 1 where n is the sample size
and k is the number of independent variables included in the model.

Increasing the sample size, n, improves the explanatory power of our
model and the data. This is an increase in the degrees of freedom and
is viewed very positively in statistical analysis.

Adding X values, increases k, hence decreasing degrees of freedom. (not
so good.)

raylopez99 wrote:
You've become very mean spirited over the last few weeks. Or maybe
you were always this way and I did not notice till now.

How can you tell with all the babbling you do?


Moron, I got an "A" in stats when I took it ages ago. Truth is, I'd
forgotten about correlation. Refreshed my memory, thanks for the
keywords, below is an excerpt.

So you are senile ( you earned an A but forgot all about it?)


Now onto the question you dodged, Roger the Dodger: UHI. Looks like
GW quacks "adjust for" UHI effects--which means they are acknowledging
they exist, which contradicts, dick, the Pearson/Peterson studies that
UHI is too small to detect.

Depends on where and over what area you are correcting the data. The result
in the global gridded average is too small to detect, not in the individual
staitons reading. You really are a dumb ****, aren't you?


Gotacha!

All you got was air, mostly rather noxious and coming out of your anal
orifice.


RL

Ian St. John wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:

Now onto the question you dodged, Roger the Dodger: UHI. Looks
like
GW quacks "adjust for" UHI effects--which means they are
acknowledging
they exist, which contradicts, dick, the Pearson/Peterson studies
that
UHI is too small to detect.

Depends on where and over what area you are correcting the data. The
result
in the global gridded average is too small to detect, not in the
individual
staitons reading. You really are a dumb ****, aren't you?


II (intemperate ian): How can you have UHI for individual stations but
not for a global gridded average (that the station presumeably
covers)? I don't see how that's possible, unless you have several
stations (some affected by UHI and some not), or unless you claim that
sea-based measuring stations and other areas clearly not affected by
UHI will overwhelm any UHI-affected data.

On second thought: never mind you moron. I'm sure you have some
clever answer lodged in your orifice under your nose.

Truth be told--no amount of evidence from the likes of partisans like
you will ever persuade me. No siree. I will not be persuaded until
the evidence is clear, so clear that I have to use my air-conditioner
in December in Minnesota.

Wait a bit longer I say for the earth to heat up before jumping to
conclusions. The Ozone Hole controversy comes to mind--the hole is
still there, ain't it?

And Venus has lots of CO2, doesn't it? What's the average temperature
on Venus? Let me Google this: a balmy 464C, with an atmosphere of
96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2). That doesn't sound so
bad.

RL

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Ian St. John wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:

Now onto the question you dodged, Roger the Dodger: UHI. Looks
like
GW quacks "adjust for" UHI effects--which means they are
acknowledging
they exist, which contradicts, dick, the Pearson/Peterson studies
that
UHI is too small to detect.

Depends on where and over what area you are correcting the data. The
result
in the global gridded average is too small to detect, not in the
individual
staitons reading. You really are a dumb ****, aren't you?


II (intemperate ian): How can you have UHI for individual stations but
not for a global gridded average (that the station presumeably
covers)? I don't see how that's possible, unless you have several
stations (some affected by UHI and some not), or unless you claim that
sea-based measuring stations and other areas clearly not affected by
UHI will overwhelm any UHI-affected data.

On second thought: never mind you moron. I'm sure you have some
clever answer lodged in your orifice under your nose.

Truth be told--no amount of evidence from the likes of partisans like
you will ever persuade me.

So you ignore what's in scientific journals, what the IPCC has reported,
what the NAS says too? That's religious dogma on your part, not scientific
intellect.


No siree. I will not be persuaded until
the evidence is clear, so clear that I have to use my air-conditioner
in December in Minnesota.

Like waiting for that forest fire to burn your house before believing it's
coming towards you.


Wait a bit longer I say for the earth to heat up before jumping to
conclusions. The Ozone Hole controversy comes to mind--the hole is
still there, ain't it?

Yes, so? Are you disputing that science too?


And Venus has lots of CO2, doesn't it? What's the average temperature
on Venus? Let me Google this: a balmy 464C, with an atmosphere of
96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2). That doesn't sound so
bad.

Fine; when can you leave for Venus?


RL

raylopez99 wrote:
Ian St. John wrote:
raylopez99 wrote:
snip
On second thought: never mind you moron. I'm sure you have some
clever answer lodged in your orifice under your nose.

Ahhh yes. I am so deviously clever that I rely on simple science to show up
the random idiocies you post.


Truth be told--no amount of evidence from the likes of partisans like
you will ever persuade me.

That much is true. However, I am not trying to 'persuade' you. Just to
eductate you. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will even educate the
'permanently ignorant' such as yourself either.

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...

Truth be told--no amount of evidence from the likes of partisans like
you will ever persuade me.

No, you will never be persuaded. You have made up your mind already,
and your trawling through the sceptic sites only convinces you even
more that you are right.

Cheers, Alastair.

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Degrees of Freedom = 124 " This does not look good. More degrees
of freedom means more chances to screw up.

I see. So your ignorance extends to the field of statistics as well....

Hardly surprising...



"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
I thought our
friends Pearson/Peterson proved there is no measurable UHI.

There is no "proof" in science Lopez. "Proof" is a concept limited to the
field of mathematics.

Stupid... Stupid... Lopez.