August Was 19th Warmest on NASA's 129-year Global Land Record.

Despite fossil fool lies,
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 129 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean August temperature over the last 129 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.08501.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2916.

Rxy 0.7241 Rxy^2 0.5244
TEMP = 13.654019 + (0.00567 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 140.018577
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of August in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.385,
yet it was 14.38.
The sum of the residuals is 21.24414

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.65836 * e^(.0004047 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.196529

Rank of the months of August
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 14.77 0.747 2.56
2003 14.76 0.737 2.53
1998 14.76 0.737 2.53
2006 14.71 0.687 2.36
2005 14.65 0.627 2.15
1996 14.64 0.617 2.12
2001 14.58 0.557 1.91
2002 14.57 0.547 1.88
2004 14.55 0.527 1.81
1981 14.54 0.517 1.77
1995 14.50 0.477 1.64
2000 14.49 0.467 1.60
1991 14.49 0.467 1.60
1983 14.47 0.447 1.53
1999 14.44 0.417 1.43
1989 14.41 0.387 1.33
1988 14.40 0.377 1.29
1990 14.39 0.367 1.26
2008 14.38 0.357 1.23 --
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1897 13.73 -0.293 -1.00
1950 13.72 -0.303 -1.04
1923 13.72 -0.303 -1.04
1908 13.72 -0.303 -1.04
1964 13.71 -0.313 -1.07
1889 13.71 -0.313 -1.07
1956 13.70 -0.323 -1.11
1921 13.69 -0.333 -1.14
1894 13.69 -0.333 -1.14
1888 13.68 -0.343 -1.17
1917 13.67 -0.353 -1.21
1904 13.66 -0.363 -1.24
1903 13.63 -0.393 -1.35
1887 13.63 -0.393 -1.35
1918 13.59 -0.433 -1.48
1907 13.57 -0.453 -1.55
1902 13.54 -0.483 -1.66
1896 13.52 -0.503 -1.72
1912 13.43 -0.593 -2.03
1891 13.35 -0.673 -2.31

The most recent 189 continuous months, or 15 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1544 months of data on this data set:
-- 755 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 789 of them are below the norm.
This run of 189 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.

On Sep 15, 2:44*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
August Was 19th Warmest on NASA's 129-year Global Land Record.

Despite fossil fool lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.



(cut)
I see from the less politicized UAH data, it was the
coldest August since 2000.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

- A. McIntire

On Sep 15, 7:13*pm, "
wrote:
I see from the less politicized *UAH data, it was the
coldest August since 2000.

*http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

- A. McIntire

Okay. BTW - How cold was 2000?

On Sep 15, 6:40*pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:13*pm, "
wrote:

I see from the less politicized *UAH data, it was the
coldest August since 2000.

But that isn't surface data, is it?



*http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/m.../tltglhmam_5.2

- A. McIntire

Okay. *BTW - How cold was 2000?

On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

You've changed ISP's Peter.
DId your old one throw you out for
violations of their terms of service
agreement?


All August rankings since 1998

1998 * *1
1999 * *7
2000 * *5
2001 * *3
2002 * *4
2003 * *2
2004 * *6
2005 * *3
2006 * *4
2007 * *1
2008 * *19

More problems with the concept of statistical significance.
Not enough data to support conclusions. . . . And you
fossil fools wonder why no one listens to you. Ha!

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:56:59 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

I see from the less politicized *UAH data, it was the
coldest August since 2000.

But that isn't surface data, is it?

Any temperature data not taken on parking lots or near air conditioning
exhausts (like NASA Giss), and then not cherry picked for the stations
matching AGW theory best (like NASA Giss), will be good data.

Don't sweat it, August 2008 is number nineteen on UAH data too. So it
almost made the bottom ten in the last thirty years. No big sensational
warming news here. (You just love the sound of the words "thirty years",
don't you?)

Joern

On Sep 15, 11:44*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
August Was 19th Warmest on NASA's 129-year Global Land Record.

Despite fossil fool lies,
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 129 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean August temperature over the last 129 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.08501.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2916.

Rxy 0.7241 * Rxy^2 0.5244
TEMP = 13.654019 + (0.00567 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 140.018577
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of August in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.385,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.38.
The sum of the residuals is 21.24414

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.65836 * e^(.0004047 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 21.196529

*Rank of the months of August
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2007 * 14.77 * * 0.747 * * 2.56
2003 * 14.76 * * 0.737 * * 2.53
1998 * 14.76 * * 0.737 * * 2.53
2006 * 14.71 * * 0.687 * * 2.36
2005 * 14.65 * * 0.627 * * 2.15
1996 * 14.64 * * 0.617 * * 2.12
2001 * 14.58 * * 0.557 * * 1.91
2002 * 14.57 * * 0.547 * * 1.88
2004 * 14.55 * * 0.527 * * 1.81
1981 * 14.54 * * 0.517 * * 1.77
1995 * 14.50 * * 0.477 * * 1.64
2000 * 14.49 * * 0.467 * * 1.60
1991 * 14.49 * * 0.467 * * 1.60
1983 * 14.47 * * 0.447 * * 1.53
1999 * 14.44 * * 0.417 * * 1.43
1989 * 14.41 * * 0.387 * * 1.33
1988 * 14.40 * * 0.377 * * 1.29
1990 * 14.39 * * 0.367 * * 1.26
2008 * 14.38 * * 0.357 * * 1.23 --
MEAN * 14.023 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1897 * 13.73 * *-0.293 * *-1.00
1950 * 13.72 * *-0.303 * *-1.04
1923 * 13.72 * *-0.303 * *-1.04
1908 * 13.72 * *-0.303 * *-1.04
1964 * 13.71 * *-0.313 * *-1.07
1889 * 13.71 * *-0.313 * *-1.07
1956 * 13.70 * *-0.323 * *-1.11
1921 * 13.69 * *-0.333 * *-1.14
1894 * 13.69 * *-0.333 * *-1.14
1888 * 13.68 * *-0.343 * *-1.17
1917 * 13.67 * *-0.353 * *-1.21
1904 * 13.66 * *-0.363 * *-1.24
1903 * 13.63 * *-0.393 * *-1.35
1887 * 13.63 * *-0.393 * *-1.35
1918 * 13.59 * *-0.433 * *-1.48
1907 * 13.57 * *-0.453 * *-1.55
1902 * 13.54 * *-0.483 * *-1.66
1896 * 13.52 * *-0.503 * *-1.72
1912 * 13.43 * *-0.593 * *-2.03
1891 * 13.35 * *-0.673 * *-2.31

The most recent 189 continuous months, or 15 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1544 months of data on this data set:
* -- 755 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 789 of them are below the norm.
This run of 189 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.

Whats wrong, couldnt Hansen fiddle it up to 9th warmest? 19th isnt
really very alarmist is it.

On Sep 15, 9:24*pm, Joern Abatz wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:56:59 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
I see from the less politicized *UAH data, it was the
coldest August since 2000.

But that isn't surface data, is it?

Any temperature data not taken on parking lots or near air conditioning
exhausts (like NASA Giss), and then not cherry picked for the stations
matching AGW theory best (like NASA Giss), will be good data.

If you have better surface data you are more than welcome
to present them here. Otherwise, real surface data trump
your fantasies.

On Sep 15, 11:20*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Where did I claim it has statistical significance?

So then, you admit that your post is an irrelevant fantasy.