During the last month, Steve Schulin cut and posted a piece
that tried made a whopping big deal about a portion of a
graph in the IPCC report so small that the author had to
magnify it. Steve is actually convinced that this debunks GW.
Meanwhile, global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.


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 126 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean April temperature over the last 126 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.09695.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3114.

Rxy 0.696963 Rxy^2 0.485757
TEMP = 13.621368 + (0.005966 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 117.131106
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999 (18 nines)
The month of April in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.373,
yet it was 14.76. -- 1.2 SIGMA above linear
projection!
(Got that Charlew2?)
The sum of the residuals is 22.485144

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624267 * e^(.0004248 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.450502

Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.82 0.820 2.63
2005 14.76 0.760 2.44 --
2002 14.74 0.740 2.38
1991 14.63 0.630 2.02
2004 14.63 0.630 2.02
1990 14.62 0.620 1.99
2000 14.61 0.610 1.96
2003 14.59 0.590 1.89
1995 14.49 0.490 1.57
1981 14.45 0.450 1.44
1999 14.43 0.430 1.38
1988 14.42 0.420 1.35
2001 14.41 0.410 1.32
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00
1964 13.63 -0.370 -1.19
1887 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1907 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1918 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1896 13.57 -0.430 -1.38
1894 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1917 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1885 13.54 -0.460 -1.48
1903 13.52 -0.480 -1.54
1895 13.51 -0.490 -1.57
1909 13.45 -0.550 -1.77
1891 13.35 -0.650 -2.09
1892 13.28 -0.720 -2.31
1884 13.26 -0.740 -2.38


The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1504 months of data on this data set:
-- 723 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 781 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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.

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

During the last month, Steve Schulin cut and posted a piece
that tried made a whopping big deal about a portion of a
graph in the IPCC report so small that the author had to
magnify it. Steve is actually convinced that this debunks GW.

What possible basis do you have for attributing this last particular to
me, Roger? I have not made any exaggerated claims about the implications
of the apparent truncation of Briffa 2000 plot within IPCC's spaghetti
diagram.

Meanwhile, global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
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 126 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

Well, IPCC does claim that urbanization effect on the surface record in
20th century is best handled by presuming linear increase throughout.
Why should now be any different? Even if all else were equal, it would
not be surprising that the surface record increases slightly each year
just from this factor. Do you have a reference you'd recommend on _how_
the GISS correction compares to the IPCC approach in the TAR?

And I know you somehow manage to repeatedly discount Duffy et al's
finding that the uncertainty during the early part of the surface record
makes these claims about ranking of years quite without scientific
basis. What's your reasoning in that regard?

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com



The Mean April temperature over the last 126 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.09695.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3114.

Rxy 0.696963 Rxy^2 0.485757
TEMP = 13.621368 + (0.005966 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 117.131106
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999 (18 nines)
The month of April in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.373,
yet it was 14.76. -- 1.2 SIGMA above linear
projection!
(Got that Charlew2?)
The sum of the residuals is 22.485144

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624267 * e^(.0004248 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.450502

Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.82 0.820 2.63
2005 14.76 0.760 2.44 --
2002 14.74 0.740 2.38
1991 14.63 0.630 2.02
2004 14.63 0.630 2.02
1990 14.62 0.620 1.99
2000 14.61 0.610 1.96
2003 14.59 0.590 1.89
1995 14.49 0.490 1.57
1981 14.45 0.450 1.44
1999 14.43 0.430 1.38
1988 14.42 0.420 1.35
2001 14.41 0.410 1.32
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00
1964 13.63 -0.370 -1.19
1887 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1907 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1918 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1896 13.57 -0.430 -1.38
1894 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1917 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1885 13.54 -0.460 -1.48
1903 13.52 -0.480 -1.54
1895 13.51 -0.490 -1.57
1909 13.45 -0.550 -1.77
1891 13.35 -0.650 -2.09
1892 13.28 -0.720 -2.31
1884 13.26 -0.740 -2.38


The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1504 months of data on this data set:
-- 723 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 781 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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.

A boldface lie easly checked with a google search
folloed by an attempt to change the topic, standard
fare for Steve Schulin.

In article . com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

A boldface lie easly checked with a google search
folloed by an attempt to change the topic, standard
fare for Steve Schulin.

I agree that there has had been at least one lie told here, prior to
this most recent post of yours. That was _your_ lie, I cheerfully point
out, when you said "Steve is actually convinced that this debunks GW." I
offered you an opportunity to retract it. But no, you choose to snip and
rant.

And the notion that any of the points in my post represented a change of
subject seems silly. Is it my noting IPCC's choice to choose linear
increase in urbanization effect on surface temperature during 20th
century as best guess what you think is a topic change? If so I note
that _you_ brought up urbanization effect correction to the data you
cite. Is my noting the unscientific nature of your "ranking" which you
think is a topic change?

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Another lie, and another attempt to misdirect

Another lie, and another attempt to misdirect

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
During the last month, Steve Schulin cut and posted a piece
that tried made a whopping big deal about a portion of a
graph in the IPCC report so small that the author had to
magnify it. Steve is actually convinced that this debunks GW.
Meanwhile, global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.


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 126 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean April temperature over the last 126 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.09695.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3114.

Rxy 0.696963 Rxy^2 0.485757
TEMP = 13.621368 + (0.005966 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 117.131106
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999 (18 nines)
The month of April in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.373,
yet it was 14.76. -- 1.2 SIGMA above linear
projection!
(Got that Charlew2?)

Yes, Roger.

The sum of the residuals is 22.485144

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624267 * e^(.0004248 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.450502

Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.82 0.820 2.63
2005 14.76 0.760 2.44 --
2002 14.74 0.740 2.38
1991 14.63 0.630 2.02
2004 14.63 0.630 2.02
1990 14.62 0.620 1.99
2000 14.61 0.610 1.96
2003 14.59 0.590 1.89
1995 14.49 0.490 1.57
1981 14.45 0.450 1.44
1999 14.43 0.430 1.38
1988 14.42 0.420 1.35
2001 14.41 0.410 1.32
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00
1964 13.63 -0.370 -1.19
1887 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1907 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1918 13.61 -0.390 -1.25
1896 13.57 -0.430 -1.38
1894 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1917 13.55 -0.450 -1.45
1885 13.54 -0.460 -1.48
1903 13.52 -0.480 -1.54
1895 13.51 -0.490 -1.57
1909 13.45 -0.550 -1.77
1891 13.35 -0.650 -2.09
1892 13.28 -0.720 -2.31
1884 13.26 -0.740 -2.38


The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1504 months of data on this data set:
-- 723 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 781 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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.