On Dec 16, 7:19*pm, "marcodbeast" wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:28 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txtThey
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
athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean November temperature over the last 129 years is 13.979 C.
The Variance is 0.06829.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2613.

Rxy 0.7849 Rxy^2 0.6161
TEMP = 13.620641 + (0.005508 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 203.827788
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of November in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.331,
yet it was 14.58. -- One SIGMA above the projected.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.133757

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624155 * e^(.0003946 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.092657

Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 14.67 0.691 2.65
2006 14.65 0.671 2.57
2005 14.64 0.661 2.53
2004 14.63 0.651 2.49
2008 14.58 0.601 2.30 --
1997 14.56 0.581 2.22
2002 14.51 0.531 2.03
2003 14.49 0.511 1.96
2007 14.48 0.501 1.92
1998 14.43 0.451 1.73
1990 14.41 0.431 1.65
1995 14.37 0.391 1.50
1996 14.35 0.371 1.42
MEAN 13.979 0.000 0.00
1906 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1889 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1898 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1894 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1887 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1916 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1891 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1910 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1908 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1902 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1892 13.58 -0.399 -1.53
1907 13.57 -0.409 -1.56
1919 13.55 -0.429 -1.64
1890 13.48 -0.499 -1.91

The most recent 177 continuous months, or 14 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1547 months of data on this data set:
-- 668 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 177 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.

Is that with new and different fudgings by Hansen? Or with the
previous months temps "mistakenly" being used instead of the actual
months temps (AGAIN)? What *******izations and manipulations did it
take for you assholes to come up with that? You ****ers can't be
trusted with reading a single mercury thermometer in your own
backyard, never mind presenting statistical compilations from datasets
from around the world. ****ing idiots.

* Translation: *"I cannot refute a single word you say."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it can be argued against. Hansen adjusts for UHI based on
satellite images taken at night (on the density of lighting).

While this could be argued to be a reasonable indication of
urbanisation it shuold be noted that some countries sheild their
street lights so they DONT shie up into space and many weather
stations which are affected by man made object, such as carparks,
aircon heat exchangers, are not nin otherwse heavially urbanised
egions.


So, beter to analyse each station used, even if it takes 5 years to do
this it is justified, and make adjustments individually.

On Dec 17, 6:28*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean November temperature over the last 129 years is 13.979 C.
The Variance is 0.06829.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2613.

Rxy 0.7849 * Rxy^2 0.6161
TEMP = 13.620641 + (0.005508 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 203.827788
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of November in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.331,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.58. -- One SIGMA above the projected.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.133757

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624155 * e^(.0003946 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.092657

*Rank of the months of November
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2001 * 14.67 * * 0.691 * * 2.65
2006 * 14.65 * * 0.671 * * 2.57
2005 * 14.64 * * 0.661 * * 2.53
2004 * 14.63 * * 0.651 * * 2.49
2008 * 14.58 * * 0.601 * * 2.30 --
1997 * 14.56 * * 0.581 * * 2.22
2002 * 14.51 * * 0.531 * * 2.03
2003 * 14.49 * * 0.511 * * 1.96
2007 * 14.48 * * 0.501 * * 1.92
1998 * 14.43 * * 0.451 * * 1.73
1990 * 14.41 * * 0.431 * * 1.65
1995 * 14.37 * * 0.391 * * 1.50
1996 * 14.35 * * 0.371 * * 1.42
MEAN * 13.979 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1906 * 13.65 * *-0.329 * *-1.26
1889 * 13.65 * *-0.329 * *-1.26
1898 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1894 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1887 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1916 * 13.60 * *-0.379 * *-1.45
1891 * 13.60 * *-0.379 * *-1.45
1910 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1908 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1902 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1892 * 13.58 * *-0.399 * *-1.53
1907 * 13.57 * *-0.409 * *-1.56
1919 * 13.55 * *-0.429 * *-1.64
1890 * 13.48 * *-0.499 * *-1.91

The most recent 177 continuous months, or 14 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1547 months of data on this data set:
* -- 668 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 177 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.

November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record (if you use
Octobers temperatures for November)

wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:29 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Dec 16, 1:12 pm, wrote:
[ . . . ]

Give us a holler when the temp of 1998 is matched. That is some kind
of warming trend you are all worried about that can't regain it's peak
of more than ten years. Which means that the trend is stationary
within a few hundreths of a degree. This level of variance is no more
AGAIN:

If you wonder why fossil fools are not respected
by government, mainstream science and the media,
you only need to get a basic education and then
reread your statement above. It's too silly
even to form the foundation for a rational debate.

You would benefit from taking an introductory
statistics course from your local junior college.
Then you would realize how stupid your statement
above is.

Like I said, give us a holler when your trend exceeds the level of 98.
In the meantime your trend is stalled or barely continueing. By no
means in sync with rising CO2 levels or indicative of climate crisis.

A course in astronomy would also enlighten you
about your even stupider statement about the
Earth's axial tilt.

No what does that mean, IDIOT.

The earth has an eccentric orbit. This means that every 6 months it
reaches maximum distance and then in 6 months reaches minimum distance
to the sun. Radiation energy decreases as an inverse square to
distance, and luminosity changes also according to apparent size of
the sun.

The close approach or perihilion, occurs while the northern hemisphere
is in winter. At this time being closer to the sun, the energy density
of the sun's radiation is higher. When each hemisphere is tilted to
the sun, the overall time that the surface recieves radiation is
increased and radiation is recieved upon more area at a given point in
time. When the southern hemisphere is tilted to the sun, it is
recieving solar radiation which is more intense, so therefore the
overall quantity of energy recieved and absorbed is greater in the
southern hemisphere.

Very clear and valid analysis which clearly proves that the southern
hemisphere recieves greater solar energy. Sorry that it just flew
right over the head of an entirely mechanically inept statitician such
as yourself.

You neglect to mention however that at aphelion, the effect is reversed.
Also, because of Kepler's laws of motion, the planet spends less time at
perihelion than at aphelion.

To evaluate the effect of orbital eccentricity on the radiative forcing,
you need to integrate K/r² over the orbital path as a function of
(r,theta) in polar coordinates. What comes out is that an eccentricity e
reduces the insolation to the first order of e²/2. Since the
eccentricity is about 1.7%, the effect is slightly more than 1/10,000,
or 0.013%.

T.


On the moon, the difference in the distance to the sun causes a
difference of 6C in the temperatures of the moon.

So let's simply look at the addition of stations over the past 50 yrs
and see if this is in any way a factor in statistical computations of
averages.

Facts are facts, regardless if it serves the Exxon devil or not. You
can't go through your whole life presuming that the Exxon devil is
your only adversary in your corrupt and fraudulent rendition of facts
of climate and theoretical science.

KD

On Dec 16, 10:52*pm, matt_sykes wrote:
On Dec 16, 6:28*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASAhttp://data.giss..nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.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 athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean November temperature over the last 129 years is 13.979 C.
The Variance is 0.06829.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2613.

Rxy 0.7849 * Rxy^2 0.6161
TEMP = 13.620641 + (0.005508 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 203.827788
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of November in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.331,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.58. -- One SIGMA above the projected.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.133757

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624155 * e^(.0003946 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.092657

*Rank of the months of November
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2001 * 14.67 * * 0.691 * * 2.65
2006 * 14.65 * * 0.671 * * 2.57
2005 * 14.64 * * 0.661 * * 2.53
2004 * 14.63 * * 0.651 * * 2.49
2008 * 14.58 * * 0.601 * * 2.30 --
1997 * 14.56 * * 0.581 * * 2.22
2002 * 14.51 * * 0.531 * * 2.03
2003 * 14.49 * * 0.511 * * 1.96
2007 * 14.48 * * 0.501 * * 1.92
1998 * 14.43 * * 0.451 * * 1.73
1990 * 14.41 * * 0.431 * * 1.65
1995 * 14.37 * * 0.391 * * 1.50
1996 * 14.35 * * 0.371 * * 1.42
MEAN * 13.979 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1906 * 13.65 * *-0.329 * *-1.26
1889 * 13.65 * *-0.329 * *-1.26
1898 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1894 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1887 * 13.61 * *-0.369 * *-1.41
1916 * 13.60 * *-0.379 * *-1.45
1891 * 13.60 * *-0.379 * *-1.45
1910 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1908 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1902 * 13.59 * *-0.389 * *-1.49
1892 * 13.58 * *-0.399 * *-1.53
1907 * 13.57 * *-0.409 * *-1.56
1919 * 13.55 * *-0.429 * *-1.64
1890 * 13.48 * *-0.499 * *-1.91

The most recent 177 continuous months, or 14 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1547 months of data on this data set:
* -- 668 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 177 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.

Sorry Roger, I just dont trust NASA data any more; there is to much
smell of corruption and manipulation.

If Hadley claimed this I would take notice, but not NASA.

Take notice, then. The equivalent Hadley data set,
hadcrut3gl, has November as 8th of 159 Novembers.

The two data sets track each other quite well.
They both record mean measures of the temperature
of the surface of the same planet.

matt_sykes wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:19 pm, "marcodbeast" wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:28 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txtThey
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
athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean November temperature over the last 129 years is 13.979 C.
The Variance is 0.06829.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2613.

Rxy 0.7849 Rxy^2 0.6161
TEMP = 13.620641 + (0.005508 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 203.827788
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of November in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.331,
yet it was 14.58. -- One SIGMA above the projected.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.133757

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624155 * e^(.0003946 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.092657

Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 14.67 0.691 2.65
2006 14.65 0.671 2.57
2005 14.64 0.661 2.53
2004 14.63 0.651 2.49
2008 14.58 0.601 2.30 --
1997 14.56 0.581 2.22
2002 14.51 0.531 2.03
2003 14.49 0.511 1.96
2007 14.48 0.501 1.92
1998 14.43 0.451 1.73
1990 14.41 0.431 1.65
1995 14.37 0.391 1.50
1996 14.35 0.371 1.42
MEAN 13.979 0.000 0.00
1906 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1889 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1898 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1894 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1887 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1916 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1891 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1910 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1908 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1902 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1892 13.58 -0.399 -1.53
1907 13.57 -0.409 -1.56
1919 13.55 -0.429 -1.64
1890 13.48 -0.499 -1.91

The most recent 177 continuous months, or 14 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1547 months of data on this data set:
-- 668 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 177 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.

Is that with new and different fudgings by Hansen? Or with the
previous months temps "mistakenly" being used instead of the actual
months temps (AGAIN)? What *******izations and manipulations did it
take for you assholes to come up with that? You ****ers can't be
trusted with reading a single mercury thermometer in your own
backyard, never mind presenting statistical compilations from
datasets from around the world. ****ing idiots.

Translation: "I cannot refute a single word you say."- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it can be argued against. Hansen adjusts for UHI based on
satellite images taken at night (on the density of lighting).

While this could be argued to be a reasonable indication of
urbanisation it shuold be noted that some countries sheild their
street lights so they DONT shie up into space and many weather
stations which are affected by man made object, such as carparks,
aircon heat exchangers, are not nin otherwse heavially urbanised
egions.

Now all you need to do is show the error.



So, beter to analyse each station used, even if it takes 5 years to do
this it is justified, and make adjustments individually.

So far, they are being looked at and gossiped about by liars, that's about
it.

On Dec 16, 10:58*pm, matt_sykes wrote:
On Dec 16, 7:19*pm, "marcodbeast" wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:28 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
November was 5th Warmest on the 129-year NASA record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from
NASAhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txtThey
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
athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean November temperature over the last 129 years is 13.979 C.
The Variance is 0.06829.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2613.

Rxy 0.7849 Rxy^2 0.6161
TEMP = 13.620641 + (0.005508 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 203.827788
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999 (27 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of November in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.331,
yet it was 14.58. -- One SIGMA above the projected.
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.133757

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.624155 * e^(.0003946 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 17.092657

Rank of the months of November
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2001 14.67 0.691 2.65
2006 14.65 0.671 2.57
2005 14.64 0.661 2.53
2004 14.63 0.651 2.49
2008 14.58 0.601 2.30 --
1997 14.56 0.581 2.22
2002 14.51 0.531 2.03
2003 14.49 0.511 1.96
2007 14.48 0.501 1.92
1998 14.43 0.451 1.73
1990 14.41 0.431 1.65
1995 14.37 0.391 1.50
1996 14.35 0.371 1.42
MEAN 13.979 0.000 0.00
1906 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1889 13.65 -0.329 -1.26
1898 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1894 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1887 13.61 -0.369 -1.41
1916 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1891 13.60 -0.379 -1.45
1910 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1908 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1902 13.59 -0.389 -1.49
1892 13.58 -0.399 -1.53
1907 13.57 -0.409 -1.56
1919 13.55 -0.429 -1.64
1890 13.48 -0.499 -1.91

The most recent 177 continuous months, or 14 years and 9 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1547 months of data on this data set:
-- 668 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 177 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.

Is that with new and different fudgings by Hansen? Or with the
previous months temps "mistakenly" being used instead of the actual
months temps (AGAIN)? What *******izations and manipulations did it
take for you assholes to come up with that? You ****ers can't be
trusted with reading a single mercury thermometer in your own
backyard, never mind presenting statistical compilations from datasets
from around the world. ****ing idiots.

* Translation: *"I cannot refute a single word you say."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it can be argued against. *Hansen adjusts for UHI based on
satellite images taken at night (on the density of lighting).

While this could be argued to be a reasonable indication of
urbanisation it shuold be noted that some countries sheild their
street lights so they DONT shie up into space and many weather
stations which are affected by man made object, such as carparks,
aircon heat exchangers, are not nin otherwse heavially urbanised
egions.

So, beter to analyse each station used, even if it takes 5 years to do
this it is justified, and make adjustments individually.

OR . . .
Take a statistically significant sample of
the stations and show that the entire 5
year exercise is useless.