12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere 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 hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.32528.
The Standard Deviation is 0.5703.

Rxy 0.7245 Rxy^2 0.5249
TEMP = 13.278401 + (0.011011 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 141.411139
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.710,
yet it was 14.74.
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.92161

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.296692 * e^(.0007858 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.73959

Rank of the months of February
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1995 15.37 1.370 2.40
1998 15.29 1.290 2.26
2002 15.27 1.270 2.23
2000 15.17 1.170 2.05
2007 15.16 1.160 2.03
1999 15.14 1.140 2.00
2006 15.10 1.100 1.93
2004 15.07 1.070 1.88
2005 14.83 0.830 1.46
1981 14.79 0.790 1.39
1997 14.76 0.760 1.33
2009 14.74 0.740 1.30 --
1935 14.72 0.720 1.26
2003 14.69 0.690 1.21
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00
1904 13.32 -0.680 -1.19
1894 13.32 -0.680 -1.19
1906 13.25 -0.750 -1.31
1929 13.24 -0.760 -1.33
1917 13.19 -0.810 -1.42
1886 13.17 -0.830 -1.45
1891 13.16 -0.840 -1.47
1887 13.15 -0.850 -1.49
1888 13.13 -0.870 -1.52
1907 13.10 -0.900 -1.58
1899 13.06 -0.940 -1.65
1883 13.05 -0.950 -1.67
1905 12.91 -1.090 -1.91
1893 12.73 -1.270 -2.23
1895 12.58 -1.420 -2.49

The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this NH.Ts.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:
-- 790 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 760 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 29, 10:00*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere 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 hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.32528.
The Standard Deviation is 0.5703.

Rxy 0.7245 * Rxy^2 0.5249
TEMP = 13.278401 + (0.011011 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 141.411139
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.710,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.74.
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.92161

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.296692 * e^(.0007858 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.73959

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1995 * 15.37 * * 1.370 * * 2.40
1998 * 15.29 * * 1.290 * * 2.26
2002 * 15.27 * * 1.270 * * 2.23
2000 * 15.17 * * 1.170 * * 2.05
2007 * 15.16 * * 1.160 * * 2.03
1999 * 15.14 * * 1.140 * * 2.00
2006 * 15.10 * * 1.100 * * 1.93
2004 * 15.07 * * 1.070 * * 1.88
2005 * 14.83 * * 0.830 * * 1.46
1981 * 14.79 * * 0.790 * * 1.39
1997 * 14.76 * * 0.760 * * 1.33
2009 * 14.74 * * 0.740 * * 1.30 --
1935 * 14.72 * * 0.720 * * 1.26
2003 * 14.69 * * 0.690 * * 1.21
MEAN * 14.000 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1904 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1894 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1906 * 13.25 * *-0.750 * *-1.31
1929 * 13.24 * *-0.760 * *-1.33
1917 * 13.19 * *-0.810 * *-1.42
1886 * 13.17 * *-0.830 * *-1.45
1891 * 13.16 * *-0.840 * *-1.47
1887 * 13.15 * *-0.850 * *-1.49
1888 * 13.13 * *-0.870 * *-1.52
1907 * 13.10 * *-0.900 * *-1.58
1899 * 13.06 * *-0.940 * *-1.65
1883 * 13.05 * *-0.950 * *-1.67
1905 * 12.91 * *-1.090 * *-1.91
1893 * 12.73 * *-1.270 * *-2.23
1895 * 12.58 * *-1.420 * *-2.49

The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this NH.Ts.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:
* -- 790 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 760 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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
1995 15.37 1.370 2.40
1998 15.29 1.290 2.26
2002 15.27 1.270 2.23
2000 15.17 1.170 2.05
2007 15.16 1.160 2.03
1999 15.14 1.140 2.00
2006 15.10 1.100 1.93
2004 15.07 1.070 1.88
2005 14.83 0.830 1.46
1981 14.79 0.790 1.39 ------------- 1981
1997 14.76 0.760 1.33
2009 14.74 0.740 1.30 ------------- 2009
1935 14.72 0.720 1.26 ------------- 1935
2003 14.69 0.690 1.21
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00

February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February
1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical
30 years to establish a climate trend.

But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February
Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935.

That is 74 years with no significant global warming. When is this CO2
and methane going to start having some effect?

Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern
Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry-
picking.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 28, 2:00*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere 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 hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.32528.
The Standard Deviation is 0.5703.

Rxy 0.7245 * Rxy^2 0.5249
TEMP = 13.278401 + (0.011011 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 141.411139
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.710,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.74.
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.92161

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.296692 * e^(.0007858 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.73959

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1995 * 15.37 * * 1.370 * * 2.40
1998 * 15.29 * * 1.290 * * 2.26
2002 * 15.27 * * 1.270 * * 2.23
2000 * 15.17 * * 1.170 * * 2.05
2007 * 15.16 * * 1.160 * * 2.03
1999 * 15.14 * * 1.140 * * 2.00
2006 * 15.10 * * 1.100 * * 1.93
2004 * 15.07 * * 1.070 * * 1.88
2005 * 14.83 * * 0.830 * * 1.46
1981 * 14.79 * * 0.790 * * 1.39
1997 * 14.76 * * 0.760 * * 1.33
2009 * 14.74 * * 0.740 * * 1.30 --
1935 * 14.72 * * 0.720 * * 1.26
2003 * 14.69 * * 0.690 * * 1.21
MEAN * 14.000 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1904 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1894 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1906 * 13.25 * *-0.750 * *-1.31
1929 * 13.24 * *-0.760 * *-1.33
1917 * 13.19 * *-0.810 * *-1.42
1886 * 13.17 * *-0.830 * *-1.45
1891 * 13.16 * *-0.840 * *-1.47
1887 * 13.15 * *-0.850 * *-1.49
1888 * 13.13 * *-0.870 * *-1.52
1907 * 13.10 * *-0.900 * *-1.58
1899 * 13.06 * *-0.940 * *-1.65
1883 * 13.05 * *-0.950 * *-1.67
1905 * 12.91 * *-1.090 * *-1.91
1893 * 12.73 * *-1.270 * *-2.23
1895 * 12.58 * *-1.420 * *-2.49

The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this NH.Ts.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:
* -- 790 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 760 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

Hmmm 12th warmest in the last 130 years? Shoul I be worried?

Nope ! Not at all.

Two things:

First, assuming that their info is correct, and I have some doubt,
12th warmest is not saying much.

Second, The last 130 years??? That is a very very short time span
when you are discussing Paleoclimatology. It's like yesterday. Or not
even that much. More like a few hours ago.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 29, 11:51*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:00*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:





12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere 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 hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean February temperature over the last 130 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.32528.
The Standard Deviation is 0.5703.

Rxy 0.7245 * Rxy^2 0.5249
TEMP = 13.278401 + (0.011011 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 141.411139
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999 (21 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of February in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.710,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.74.
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.92161

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.296692 * e^(.0007858 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 40.73959

*Rank of the months of February
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1995 * 15.37 * * 1.370 * * 2.40
1998 * 15.29 * * 1.290 * * 2.26
2002 * 15.27 * * 1.270 * * 2.23
2000 * 15.17 * * 1.170 * * 2.05
2007 * 15.16 * * 1.160 * * 2.03
1999 * 15.14 * * 1.140 * * 2.00
2006 * 15.10 * * 1.100 * * 1.93
2004 * 15.07 * * 1.070 * * 1.88
2005 * 14.83 * * 0.830 * * 1.46
1981 * 14.79 * * 0.790 * * 1.39
1997 * 14.76 * * 0.760 * * 1.33
2009 * 14.74 * * 0.740 * * 1.30 --
1935 * 14.72 * * 0.720 * * 1.26
2003 * 14.69 * * 0.690 * * 1.21
MEAN * 14.000 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1904 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1894 * 13.32 * *-0.680 * *-1.19
1906 * 13.25 * *-0.750 * *-1.31
1929 * 13.24 * *-0.760 * *-1.33
1917 * 13.19 * *-0.810 * *-1.42
1886 * 13.17 * *-0.830 * *-1.45
1891 * 13.16 * *-0.840 * *-1.47
1887 * 13.15 * *-0.850 * *-1.49
1888 * 13.13 * *-0.870 * *-1.52
1907 * 13.10 * *-0.900 * *-1.58
1899 * 13.06 * *-0.940 * *-1.65
1883 * 13.05 * *-0.950 * *-1.67
1905 * 12.91 * *-1.090 * *-1.91
1893 * 12.73 * *-1.270 * *-2.23
1895 * 12.58 * *-1.420 * *-2.49

The most recent 149 continuous months, or 12 years and 5 months,
on this NH.Ts.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:
* -- 790 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 760 of them are below the norm.
This run of 149 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

thanks Roger :)

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs!
WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere
Record

On Mar 28, 4:05*pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]
February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February
1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical
30 years to establish a climate trend.

Nope! Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he
obviously cherry picks his dates. These data
clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere
over the last 28 years. Please note the positive
3.1K per century warming in the correlation and
regression analysis below.

Rxy 0.642605 Rxy^2 0.412941
TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981))
Degrees of Freedom = 26 F = 18.288595
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998


But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February
Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935.

Mr. Right is wrong again!

Rxy 0.540833 Rxy^2 0.2925
TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934))
Degrees of Freedom = 73 F = 30.180232
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453

Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+
confidence of non-zero correlation.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern
Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry-
picking.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

-----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!-----
-----A class at a local junior college would help him.-----

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

On Mar 28, 5:16*pm, Catoni wrote:
[ . . . ]
* Second, * The last 130 years??? *That is a very very short time span
when you are discussing Paleoclimatology.

But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology.
You just tried to change the subject, again.

It's like yesterday. Or not
even that much. More like a few hours ago.

Yet, you fossil fools conclude that there
is a current cooling trend from less than
a decade of data. So then, 8 years is
enough for a fossil fool to claim a cooling
trend, but 130 years is not enough for
mainstream science to conclude a warming
trend. LOL!

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest Februaryon NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

Roger Coppock wrote:
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs!
WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere
Record

On Mar 28, 4:05 pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]
February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February
1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical
30 years to establish a climate trend.

Nope! Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he
obviously cherry picks his dates. These data
clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere
over the last 28 years. Please note the positive
3.1K per century warming in the correlation and
regression analysis below.

Rxy 0.642605 Rxy^2 0.412941
TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981))
Degrees of Freedom = 26 F = 18.288595
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998

But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February
Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935.

Mr. Right is wrong again!

Rxy 0.540833 Rxy^2 0.2925
TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934))
Degrees of Freedom = 73 F = 30.180232
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453

Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+
confidence of non-zero correlation.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern
Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry-
picking.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

-----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!-----
-----A class at a local junior college would help him.-----

I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern HemisphereRecord
 

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:16 pm, Catoni wrote:
[ . . . ]
Second, The last 130 years??? That is a very very short time span
when you are discussing Paleoclimatology.

But, I wasn't discussing Paleoclimatology.
You just tried to change the subject, again.

That is a deniers trick, insert some illogical statements in the
discussion in the hope that the original poster gets confused.


It's like yesterday. Or not
even that much. More like a few hours ago.

Yet, you fossil fools conclude that there
is a current cooling trend from less than
a decade of data. So then, 8 years is
enough for a fossil fool to claim a cooling
trend, but 130 years is not enough for
mainstream science to conclude a warming
trend. LOL!

The presumed cooling trend is caused by cherry picking of AGW deniers.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs! WAS: 12th warmest February onNASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere Record
 

On Mar 29, 9:29*pm, qqq wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Mr. Right Makes Statistical Wrongs!
WAS: 12th warmest February on NASA's 130-year Northern Hemisphere
Record

On Mar 28, 4:05 pm, Mr Right wrote:
[ . . . ]
February 2009 (in the Northern Hemisphere) is cooler than February
1981. No warming in 28 years (this is nearly equal to Roger's magical
30 years to establish a climate trend.

Nope! *Mr. Right gets it wrong, even when he
obviously cherry picks his dates. *These data
clearly show warming in the Northern Hemisphere
over the last 28 years. *Please note the positive
3.1K per century warming in the correlation and
regression analysis below.

Rxy 0.642605 * Rxy^2 0.412941
TEMP = 14.231825 + (0.03145 * (YEAR-1981))
Degrees of Freedom = 26 * * * * F = 18.288595
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.9998

But wait. There is more. No significant increase in the February
Northern Hemisphere average global temperature, since 1935.

Mr. Right is wrong again!

Rxy 0.540833 * Rxy^2 0.2925
TEMP = 13.847095 + (0.011975 * (YEAR-1934))
Degrees of Freedom = 73 * * * * F = 30.180232
Confidence of nonzero correlation = 0.999999453

Note the 1.2K per century warming at .999999+
confidence of non-zero correlation.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

Roger, are you brave enough to post the data for the Southern
Hemisphere. Only posting the Northern Hemisphere data is cherry-
picking.

Can't you calculate the numbers for the Southern
Hemisphere, Mr. Right?

-----Mr. Right should study basic statistics!-----
-----A class at a local junior college would help him.-----

I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong.

Q

--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.

I propose a new trivia here, Mr. Right is always wrong.

I would like to propose a new rule, called Q's rule.

Q's rule says, when I don't have any scientific rebuttal, I will make
a trivia.

Trivia are trivial, meaningless, and take peoples attention away from
the fact that Q has nothing intelligent to say.