rktz wrote:
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 **

Only if the temperature is in outer space.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 8, 8:59 pm, Al Bedo wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.
One does wonder what was so different this March from Central Europe to Siberia:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...ar_last=2008&m...

That's quite a warm spot.

Still, whatever the reason, the March GISS anomalies are
wildly divergent from the MSU MT data which for the fourth month in a row are
actually cooler than average:http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthl...onthly_MSU_AMS...

Quit your god damned lying Al!
Use tLt data, not tMt data, space cadet.
Unless you live above 30,000 feet, do you?

Surely you are aware that the climate models
predict maximal 'global warming' at around
300mb, which is not the lower troposphere.

However, the GISS data (grey plot) from March also diverge greatly from
the MSU Lower Tropospheric data( the orange and magenta plots):

http://climatewatcher.blogspot.com/#Trend2002

If fossil fools wonder why the press and the politicians
give them no respect, here's why.

On Apr 9, 8:34*am, 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.

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.

Poetic Justice wrote:
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.

Funny, you don't seem to be able to show any bad data.

"Ouroboros_Rex" wrote in message
...
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.

Proof oh great "oh-bore us".

On Apr 9, 4:51*pm, Bill Ward wrote:


Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. *That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. *If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. *Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

So, show us how is should be done. Show us your better data.

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.

On Apr 8, 6:35*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
March ties for 3rd warmest on NASA's 129-year record.


According to the more reliable UAH, it was the second coldest March
since 2000


http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

- A. McIntire

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 8:34 am, 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.

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.

He just did. Why ask for another?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 4:51 pm, Bill Ward wrote:


Fantasies aren't science, whether they're mine or NASA's. That's
the problem with trying to "correct" bad data. If it's bad, it can't be
used - it's a fantasy based on invalid assumptions. Averaging bad
data with with good data hides the problem, but doesn't fix it.

So, show us how is should be done. Show us your better data.

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.

Seems a better method would bring objection from you. You seem to prefer
approximation for your little junior staistics kit.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 10:52 pm, Annabel Lee
wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Please don't take this the wrong way since I know you're up against a
lot of people whose minds are made up. I'm genuinely undecided.

So, why is one month signficiant?

By itself, just one month isn't significant.
With a 129 year history like that above, it
is instructive. Add to that similar analyses
that I've done every month for years now and
you have a very useful tool.

But according to you there is no trend so why bring history into it.