February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed at
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.799 2.59
2002 14.70 0.709 2.30
1995 14.70 0.709 2.30
2004 14.66 0.669 2.17
2007 14.61 0.619 2.01
1999 14.60 0.609 1.98
2006 14.59 0.599 1.94
2005 14.56 0.569 1.85
2000 14.51 0.519 1.68
2003 14.50 0.509 1.65
1996 14.46 0.469 1.52
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
2001 14.41 0.419 1.36
MEAN 13.991 0.000 0.00
1951 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1886 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1929 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.411 -1.34
1911 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1907 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1888 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1905 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1887 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1891 13.49 -0.501 -1.63
1893 13.48 -0.511 -1.66
1917 13.47 -0.521 -1.69
1895 13.46 -0.531 -1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
-- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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 Mar 13, 4:57*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

The numbers are higher

On Mar 13, 12:57*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

•• Bull****!!!! more from Hansen's cook book

On Mar 13, 12:57*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

Thanks, Roger.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
wrote:

On Mar 13, 12:57*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

•• Bull****!!!! more from Hansen's cook book


There have been at least 20 warmer periods in the last 5,000 years.
And go back 1,000,000 years and the current temps are cold compared to
the long term average.

On Mar 14, 5:57*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

How long do we have to wait until we see some evidence of AGW?

On Mar 14, 1:00*am, Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:57*am, Roger Coppock wrote:





February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

On Mar 14, 8:30*pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00*am, Mr Right wrote:



On Mar 14, 5:57*am, Roger Coppock wrote:

February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.

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

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.

Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72

The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.

Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.

No warming over 18 years.

and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.

I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?

Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:



On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html
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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.79 0.799 2.59
2002 14.70 0.709 2.30
1995 14.70 0.709 2.30
2004 14.66 0.669 2.17
2007 14.61 0.619 2.01
1999 14.60 0.609 1.98
2006 14.59 0.599 1.94
2005 14.56 0.569 1.85
2000 14.51 0.519 1.68
2003 14.50 0.509 1.65
1996 14.46 0.469 1.52
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
2001 14.41 0.419 1.36
MEAN 13.991 0.000 0.00
1951 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1886 13.61 -0.381 -1.24
1929 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1890 13.59 -0.401 -1.30
1918 13.58 -0.411 -1.34
1911 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1904 13.55 -0.441 -1.43
1907 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1888 13.54 -0.451 -1.47
1905 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1887 13.50 -0.491 -1.59
1891 13.49 -0.501 -1.63
1893 13.48 -0.511 -1.66
1917 13.47 -0.521 -1.69
1895 13.46 -0.531 -1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
-- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 14.44 0.449 1.46
2009 14.41 0.419 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. 2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. No warming
over 18 years.

We call that Cherry-Picking.


I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?

You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

On Mar 14, 9:28*pm, qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:30 pm, ACAR wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:00 am, Mr Right wrote:

On Mar 14, 5:57 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
February tied for 13th warmest in last 130 years of the NASA global
record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html
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 130 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 129 yearly means of these data are graphed athttp://members..cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 13.991 C.
The Variance is 0.09483.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3080.
Rxy 0.754 * Rxy^2 0.569
TEMP = 13.58581 + (0.006188 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 168.770391
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999 (24 nines), which is darn close to 100%!
The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- Above the expected.
(The rate of temperature rise continues to accelerate.)
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.69946
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59096 * e^(.0004425 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.64146
*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.79 * * 0.799 * * 2.59
2002 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
1995 * 14.70 * * 0.709 * * 2.30
2004 * 14.66 * * 0.669 * * 2.17
2007 * 14.61 * * 0.619 * * 2.01
1999 * 14.60 * * 0.609 * * 1.98
2006 * 14.59 * * 0.599 * * 1.94
2005 * 14.56 * * 0.569 * * 1.85
2000 * 14.51 * * 0.519 * * 1.68
2003 * 14.50 * * 0.509 * * 1.65
1996 * 14.46 * * 0.469 * * 1.52
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
2001 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36
MEAN * 13.991 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1951 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1886 * 13.61 * *-0.381 * *-1.24
1929 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1890 * 13.59 * *-0.401 * *-1.30
1918 * 13.58 * *-0.411 * *-1.34
1911 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.55 * *-0.441 * *-1.43
1907 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1888 * 13.54 * *-0.451 * *-1.47
1905 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1887 * 13.50 * *-0.491 * *-1.59
1891 * 13.49 * *-0.501 * *-1.63
1893 * 13.48 * *-0.511 * *-1.66
1917 * 13.47 * *-0.521 * *-1.69
1895 * 13.46 * *-0.531 * *-1.72
The most recent 180 continuous months, or 15 years and 0 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1550 months of data on this data set:
* -- 670 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 180 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.
Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
snip top 11 months
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.449 * * 1.46
2009 * 14.41 * * 0.419 * * 1.36 --
February 2009 was cooler than February 1991.
No warming over 18 years.
and you learned your statistical analysis techniques in which 3rd
grade class?

and you learned your statistical analysis
techniques in which 3rd grade class?

This analysis involves the simple comparison of numerical values, to
sort the records into order of decreasing temperature.

Then some observation, February 1991 has a higher temperature than
February 2009.

A simple subtraction reveals the number of years between 2009 and
1991. *2009 - 1991 = 18

Conclusion: February 2009 was cooler than February 1991. *No warming
over 18 years.

We call that Cherry-Picking.



I learned to do this level of analysis in primary school. When are you
going to learn it.

For your information, I got the grade of A+ in all 3 papers that I did
in advanced statistical techniques, at stage 2 and 3 of my bachelors
degree. What is your qualification?

You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

AGW Alarmists scream cherry-picking, every time that a verified fact
is pointed out, that is inconsistent with AGW.

Perhaps you would like me to include more data:

February 2009 was cooler than February 1991
February 2009 was cooler than February 1995
February 2009 was cooler than February 1996
February 2009 was cooler than February 1998
February 2009 was cooler than February 1999
February 2009 was cooler than February 2000
February 2009 was cooler than February 2002
February 2009 was cooler than February 2003
February 2009 was cooler than February 2004
February 2009 was cooler than February 2005
February 2009 was cooler than February 2006
February 2009 was cooler than February 2007

Of the 18 Februarys from 1991 to 2008, February 2009 was cooler than
12 out of the 18 Februarys.

Where is the global warming?

----------

You have no qualifications in climate science. Mr. Right is wrong.

Please define exactly what you mean by climate science, otherwise you
are not justified in saying this.

I have many degrees in common sense, something that seems to be sadly
lacking on the AGW Alarmist side.

qqq, what qualifications in climate science do YOU have. (I suspect
none)