October Claims 2nd Warmest Spot on NASA's 128-year Global Land Record.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

The month of July in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.397,
yet it was 14.57. - Above projected.

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/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 128 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean October temperature over the last 128 years is 14.036 C.
The Variance is 0.08332.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2887.

Rxy 0.652905 Rxy^2 0.426284
TEMP = 13.707414 + (0.005101 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 93.620995
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)

The month of October in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.360,
yet it was 14.77. -- 1.4 SIGMA above the trend!
The sum of the residuals is 22.312844

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.709511 * e^(.0003621 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.27177

Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.86 0.824 2.85
2007 14.77 0.734 2.54 --
2006 14.76 0.724 2.51
2003 14.75 0.714 2.47
2004 14.72 0.684 2.37
1995 14.60 0.564 1.95
1998 14.58 0.544 1.88
2002 14.57 0.534 1.85
1990 14.51 0.474 1.64
2001 14.49 0.454 1.57
1999 14.43 0.394 1.36
1997 14.43 0.394 1.36
1988 14.41 0.374 1.29
MEAN 14.036 0.000 0.00
1902 13.63 -0.406 -1.41
1880 13.63 -0.406 -1.41
1908 13.61 -0.426 -1.48
1892 13.61 -0.426 -1.48
1976 13.60 -0.436 -1.51
1884 13.59 -0.446 -1.55
1904 13.58 -0.456 -1.58
1897 13.58 -0.456 -1.58
1898 13.57 -0.466 -1.62
1917 13.55 -0.486 -1.69
1912 13.53 -0.506 -1.75
1903 13.51 -0.526 -1.82
1891 13.37 -0.666 -2.31
1886 13.35 -0.686 -2.38

The most recent 179 continuous months, or 14 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1534 months of data on this data set:
-- 747 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 787 of them are below the norm.
This run of 179 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.

And it was AWESOME!!!!


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
October Claims 2nd Warmest Spot on NASA's 128-year Global Land Record.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

The month of July in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.397,
yet it was 14.57. - Above projected.

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/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 128 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean October temperature over the last 128 years is 14.036 C.
The Variance is 0.08332.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2887.

Rxy 0.652905 Rxy^2 0.426284
TEMP = 13.707414 + (0.005101 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 93.620995
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)

The month of October in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.360,
yet it was 14.77. -- 1.4 SIGMA above the trend!
The sum of the residuals is 22.312844

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.709511 * e^(.0003621 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.27177

Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.86 0.824 2.85
2007 14.77 0.734 2.54 --
2006 14.76 0.724 2.51
2003 14.75 0.714 2.47
2004 14.72 0.684 2.37
1995 14.60 0.564 1.95
1998 14.58 0.544 1.88
2002 14.57 0.534 1.85
1990 14.51 0.474 1.64
2001 14.49 0.454 1.57
1999 14.43 0.394 1.36
1997 14.43 0.394 1.36
1988 14.41 0.374 1.29
MEAN 14.036 0.000 0.00
1902 13.63 -0.406 -1.41
1880 13.63 -0.406 -1.41
1908 13.61 -0.426 -1.48
1892 13.61 -0.426 -1.48
1976 13.60 -0.436 -1.51
1884 13.59 -0.446 -1.55
1904 13.58 -0.456 -1.58
1897 13.58 -0.456 -1.58
1898 13.57 -0.466 -1.62
1917 13.55 -0.486 -1.69
1912 13.53 -0.506 -1.75
1903 13.51 -0.526 -1.82
1891 13.37 -0.666 -2.31
1886 13.35 -0.686 -2.38

The most recent 179 continuous months, or 14 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1534 months of data on this data set:
-- 747 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 787 of them are below the norm.
This run of 179 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.

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" wrote in message
...

"joe six pack" wrote
And it was AWESOME!!!!

That's odd because you KKKonservative AmeriKKKan **** Suckers spent so
much time complaining about how cold it was.




Not me that's for sure. I was in shorts and a t-shirt. I do remember
someone else worrying about the fact that his grass was still green and the
leaves hadn't turned colors and dropped off yet, though. And I do remeber
reading a longwinded post from Fernbach about how he was enjoying the
"unseasonably warm fall". Didn't they used to call those indian summers?
Regardless, I enjoyed the warm October weather in my area.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:27:18 -0800, Roger Coppock
sayd the following:

October Claims 2nd Warmest Spot on NASA's 128-year Global Land Record.


I loved it. I wish we'd break records every month, keeps things
interesting.

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:48:36 -0800, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
sayd the following:

"joe six pack" wrote
Regardless, I enjoyed the warm October weather in my area.

I wonder if the farmers in the rapidly desertifying U.S. grain belt are.

Who cares if they are?

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:27:53 -0500, Crackles McFarly
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:27:18 -0800, Roger Coppock
sayd the following:

October Claims 2nd Warmest Spot on NASA's 128-year Global Land Record.


I loved it. I wish we'd break records every month, keeps things
interesting.


Be very careful what you wish for...

"Crackles McFarly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:48:36 -0800, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
sayd the following:

"joe six pack" wrote
Regardless, I enjoyed the warm October weather in my area.

I wonder if the farmers in the rapidly desertifying U.S. grain belt are.

Who cares if they are?

Depends on whether you can eat rocks, I suppose.

"Ouroboros_Rex" wrote in message
...

"Crackles McFarly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:48:36 -0800, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
sayd the following:

"joe six pack" wrote
Regardless, I enjoyed the warm October weather in my area.

I wonder if the farmers in the rapidly desertifying U.S. grain belt
are.

Who cares if they are?

Depends on whether you can eat rocks, I suppose.


So irrigation is out of the question?

On Nov 7, 9:27 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
October Claims 2nd Warmest Spot on NASA's 128-year Global Land Record.

(cut)
According to RSS MSU data, October was tied as the second coolest
month in the 21st century, 2007 will probably become the coolest year
of the 21st century.

http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly...cean_v03_0.txt

- A. McIntire

On Nov 7, 9:27 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

Rxy 0.652905 Rxy^2 0.426284
TEMP = 13.707414 + (0.005101 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 126 F = 93.620995
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999 (16 nines)


When the facts don't fit the theory, just obfuscate the facts!

BTW the sea temperatures are now out for October. Brrrrr!

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te.../hadsst2gl.txt