Poetic Justice wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

This ain't rocket science?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01*pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data,
as do several other organizations. *I use NASA's data
because GISS corrects for UHI using nighttime earth
shine, artificial lighting, measured from satellites.
IMHO, this method is better than using census data
to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

On 9 Apr, 10:42, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:22*pm, matt_sykes wrote:





On Apr 9, 3:35*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

In spite of the Carbon fuel industry's huge 'investment' in
'public relations,' global mean surface temperatures continue
to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean March temperature over the last 129 years is 13.998 C.
The Variance is 0.08307.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2882.

Rxy 0.79294 * Rxy^2 0.62875
TEMP = 13.599444 + (0.006137 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 215.08622
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999 (28 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of March in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.391,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.67. - 1 SIGMA above projected
The sum of the residuals is 17.53310

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.60454 * e^(.0004358 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 17.43215

* Rank of the months of March
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2002 * 14.84 * * 0.842 * * 2.92
2005 * 14.70 * * 0.702 * * 2.43
2008 * 14.67 * * 0.672 * * 2.33 --
1990 * 14.67 * * 0.672 * * 2.33
2007 * 14.60 * * 0.602 * * 2.09
2004 * 14.59 * * 0.592 * * 2.05
1998 * 14.56 * * 0.562 * * 1.95
2006 * 14.55 * * 0.552 * * 1.91
2001 * 14.54 * * 0.542 * * 1.88
2003 * 14.51 * * 0.512 * * 1.78
1988 * 14.47 * * 0.472 * * 1.64
2000 * 14.46 * * 0.462 * * 1.60
1997 * 14.46 * * 0.462 * * 1.60
MEAN * 13.998 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1960 * 13.68 * *-0.318 * *-1.10
1916 * 13.68 * *-0.318 * *-1.10
1886 * 13.67 * *-0.328 * *-1.14
1910 * 13.66 * *-0.338 * *-1.17
1892 * 13.66 * *-0.338 * *-1.17
1913 * 13.65 * *-0.348 * *-1.21
1912 * 13.65 * *-0.348 * *-1.21
1887 * 13.62 * *-0.378 * *-1.31
1909 * 13.55 * *-0.448 * *-1.56
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.458 * *-1.59
1917 * 13.53 * *-0.468 * *-1.63
1911 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66
1908 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66
1898 * 13.52 * *-0.478 * *-1.66

The most recent 169 continuous months, or 14 years and 1 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1539 months of data on this data set:
* -- 659 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 169 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.

UHI adjusted? Bull. *Looking at satelite images and adjusting for
light intensity is a joke. *How about the weather station in France on
the central reservation of a motorway I passed the other day? *No
lights around that station at all,, but put in some road works and
have a traffic jam and the temp is going to shoot up.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction,
you are more than welcome to present them here. *Until
then the data presented above are a better indication of
reality than your fantasies.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See my earlier response.

On Apr 9, 1:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

I use NASA's data
because Hansen fudges it to show more global warming than
what actually exists.
IMHO, this method is better than using real temperature data which
show no warming in the last decade.

fixed

On Apr 8, 11:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-
Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

Can't do real science...take temperatures.

matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data,
as do several other organizations. I use NASA's data
because GISS corrects for UHI using nighttime earth
shine, artificial lighting, measured from satellites.
IMHO, this method is better than using census data
to locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you
wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Simply a lie.

Poetic Justice wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

Who says they are?

matt_sykes wrote:
On 9 Apr, 10:42, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:22 pm, matt_sykes wrote:





On Apr 9, 3:35 am, Roger Coppock wrote:

March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

In spite of the Carbon fuel industry's huge 'investment' in
'public relations,' global mean surface temperatures continue
to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed
at:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean March temperature over the last 129 years is 13.998 C.
The Variance is 0.08307.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2882.

Rxy 0.79294 Rxy^2 0.62875
TEMP = 13.599444 + (0.006137 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 215.08622
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999 (28 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of March in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.391,
yet it was 14.67. - 1 SIGMA above projected
The sum of the residuals is 17.53310

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.60454 * e^(.0004358 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 17.43215

Rank of the months of March
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2002 14.84 0.842 2.92
2005 14.70 0.702 2.43
2008 14.67 0.672 2.33 --
1990 14.67 0.672 2.33
2007 14.60 0.602 2.09
2004 14.59 0.592 2.05
1998 14.56 0.562 1.95
2006 14.55 0.552 1.91
2001 14.54 0.542 1.88
2003 14.51 0.512 1.78
1988 14.47 0.472 1.64
2000 14.46 0.462 1.60
1997 14.46 0.462 1.60
MEAN 13.998 0.000 0.00
1960 13.68 -0.318 -1.10
1916 13.68 -0.318 -1.10
1886 13.67 -0.328 -1.14
1910 13.66 -0.338 -1.17
1892 13.66 -0.338 -1.17
1913 13.65 -0.348 -1.21
1912 13.65 -0.348 -1.21
1887 13.62 -0.378 -1.31
1909 13.55 -0.448 -1.56
1888 13.54 -0.458 -1.59
1917 13.53 -0.468 -1.63
1911 13.52 -0.478 -1.66
1908 13.52 -0.478 -1.66
1898 13.52 -0.478 -1.66

The most recent 169 continuous months, or 14 years and 1 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1539 months of data on this data set:
-- 659 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 169 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.

UHI adjusted? Bull. Looking at satelite images and adjusting for
light intensity is a joke. How about the weather station in France
on the central reservation of a motorway I passed the other day? No
lights around that station at all,, but put in some road works and
have a traffic jam and the temp is going to shoot up.

If you have better data, or a method for UHI correction,
you are more than welcome to present them here. Until
then the data presented above are a better indication of
reality than your fantasies.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See my earlier response.

You mean, your off-the-top-of-the-head made-up crap.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:

On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.
Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for UHI
using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to locate
urban areas.
That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area near to
the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist you wold know
this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data. Unless you're
trying to scare people, of course.


no data is dumb?
bad data is dumber?

so we have dumb and dumber.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:04:24 -0700, matt_sykes wrote:

On 9 Apr, 10:24, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, Poetic Justice -n-

Dog.com wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.

Why is NASA the official keeper of the temperature?

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies offers data, as do several
other organizations. I use NASA's data because GISS corrects for UHI
using nighttime earth shine, artificial lighting, measured from
satellites. IMHO, this method is better than using census data to
locate urban areas.

That is a feeble way to adjust for UHI.

The ONLY way to adjust for UHI is to put a station in a rural area
near to the urban station to act as a control (being a sicnetist
you wold know this of course).

Mind you, one you have done that you might as well ignore the urban
station data since rural data is true surface temp.

And what happens when you do that? You get no warming trend. RURAL
STATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE SHOW NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE TREND.

Roger can't comprehend that bad data is worse than no data.

Funny, you can't seem to show any bad data.