11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set

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 April temperature over the last 130 years is 13.973 C.
The Variance is 0.07207.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2685.

Rxy 0.818 Rxy^2 0.669
TEMP = 13.589617 + (0.005852 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 258.851393
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999999 (31 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of April in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.350,
yet it was 14.44.
The sum of the absolute errors is 16.37904

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59389 * e^(.0004189 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 16.31479

Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 14.65 0.677 2.52
2005 14.63 0.657 2.45
2002 14.56 0.587 2.19
1998 14.55 0.577 2.15
2000 14.53 0.557 2.08
2004 14.51 0.537 2.00
2003 14.48 0.507 1.89
1990 14.48 0.507 1.89
2006 14.45 0.477 1.78
1991 14.45 0.477 1.78
2009 14.44 0.467 1.74 --
2008 14.43 0.457 1.70
2001 14.40 0.427 1.59
1995 14.39 0.417 1.55
MEAN 13.973 0.000 0.00
1913 13.65 -0.323 -1.20
1885 13.65 -0.323 -1.20
1896 13.63 -0.343 -1.28
1903 13.62 -0.353 -1.31
1884 13.62 -0.353 -1.31
1894 13.61 -0.363 -1.35
1887 13.61 -0.363 -1.35
1917 13.60 -0.373 -1.39
1908 13.60 -0.373 -1.39
1904 13.59 -0.383 -1.43
1907 13.58 -0.393 -1.46
1918 13.57 -0.403 -1.50
1892 13.56 -0.413 -1.54
1909 13.55 -0.423 -1.58
1911 13.52 -0.453 -1.69

The most recent 182 continuous months, or 15 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1552 months of data on this data set:
-- 672 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 880 of them are below the norm.
This run of 182 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.

Hey, did you use an R script for the calculations? Could we see the script?

I just downloaded the R Project and want to have some fun with figures.

Lee

On May 13, 5:34*pm, Bob Lee Swagger wrote:
Hey, did you use an R script for the calculations? Could we see the script?

I just downloaded the R Project and want to have some fun with figures.

Lee

Though I do use R a lot, these computations are
not done with R. This output comes from a
600-line BASIC program I wrote. I would share
that. However, portions of it are copyrighted.

Be sure to get a good textbook on R. I don't
know which is the best out there. I have two
books:

-- "Introductory Statistics with R," by
Peter Dalgaard, and

-- "Data Analysis and Graphics Using R" by
John Maindonald and John Braun.

The first is easy to read, a good 'quick start.'
The second is more complete. Neither book is
a substitute for an introductory course in
statistics, which you need to properly use R.

Also, there is a R newsgroup at

http://groups.google.com/group/The-R...ical-Computing

It doesn't have much activity, but my technical
question posts on R programming usually get sane
answers there in a couple of days.

Good Luck and welcome to the wonderful world
of 5th generation computer languages.

Ok, thanks for the tip.

Lee

On Thu, 14 May 2009 06:35:23 +0200, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

On May 13, 5:34Â*pm, Bob Lee Swagger wrote:
Hey, did you use an R script for the calculations? Could we see the script?

I just downloaded the R Project and want to have some fun with figures.

Lee

Though I do use R a lot, these computations are
not done with R. This output comes from a
600-line BASIC program I wrote.

You really want to make us believe, a homebrew 600 line BASIC program can
replace all the datacenters for GCM?

You're dumber than I thought.

PRINTF:

On May 13, 9:35*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 13, 5:34*pm, Bob Lee Swagger wrote:
Hey, did you use an R script for the calculations? Could we see the script?

I just downloaded the R Project and want to have some fun with figures.

Lee

Though I do use R a lot, these computations are
not done with R. *This output comes from a
600-line BASIC program I wrote. *

You really want to make us believe, a homebrew 600 line BASIC program can
replace all the datacenters for GCM?

You're dumber than I thought.

If you don't know the difference between the
output at the head of this thread and the
output of a GCM, you've been arguing from
extreme ignorance on this newsgroup.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set


We supposedly have a crisis of accelerating warming yet April 2009 has
fallen out of the top ten in warmth. I'm amazed you think this tidbit
supports your case.

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


I guess you haven't noticed that the fossil fuel industry has gone quiet on
opposing AGW - for good reason. They've realized that these crazy cap and
trade schemes will artificially raise prices - very good for the oil
companies. They're busy planning how to capitalize on AGW.

Why do you post a link to a 2008 story citing 2007 data. The cooling since
2002 is obvious in this data but we've had another 16 months of cooling
since then.

BobLl wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set


We supposedly have a crisis of accelerating warming yet April 2009 has
fallen out of the top ten in warmth. I'm amazed you think this tidbit
supports your case.

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


I guess you haven't noticed that the fossil fuel industry has gone
quiet on opposing AGW - for good reason. They've realized that these
crazy cap and trade schemes will artificially raise prices - very
good for the oil companies. They're busy planning how to capitalize
on AGW.
Why do you post a link to a 2008 story citing 2007 data. The cooling
since 2002 is obvious in this data but we've had another 16 months of
cooling since then.

Why do denialists pretend they don't know about temporary cycles when it
suits them, and blame everything on them the rest of the time? lol

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

marcodbeast wrote:
BobLl wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set


We supposedly have a crisis of accelerating warming yet April 2009
has fallen out of the top ten in warmth. I'm amazed you think this
tidbit supports your case.

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


I guess you haven't noticed that the fossil fuel industry has gone
quiet on opposing AGW - for good reason. They've realized that these
crazy cap and trade schemes will artificially raise prices - very
good for the oil companies. They're busy planning how to capitalize
on AGW.
Why do you post a link to a 2008 story citing 2007 data. The cooling
since 2002 is obvious in this data but we've had another 16 months of
cooling since then.

Why do denialists pretend they don't know about temporary cycles
when it suits them, and blame everything on them the rest of the
time? lol
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

I'm consistent. I've always believed that natural changes and ocillations
are responsible - both for the warming in the 80s and 90s and the cooling in
the 00s. From your own link:

"During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the
oscillation's warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are
reversed."

The entire AGW crisis phenomenon is built on the warming seen during the 80s
and 90s. Now you apparently agree that this was just a climate
oscillation - not due to CO2. You must then also agree that AGW is just a
big mistake.

On May 14, 2:37*pm, "BobLl" wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
BobLl wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
....
11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set

We supposedly have a crisis of accelerating warming yet April 2009
has fallen out of the top ten in warmth. *I'm amazed you think this
tidbit supports your case.

We are accelerating, read my post.




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

I guess you haven't noticed that the fossil fuel industry has gone
quiet on opposing AGW - for good reason. *They've realized that these
crazy cap and trade schemes will artificially raise prices - very
good for the oil companies. * They're busy planning how to capitalize
on AGW.
Why do you post a link to a 2008 story citing 2007 data. *The cooling
since 2002 is obvious in this data but we've had another 16 months of
cooling since then.

*Why do denialists pretend they don't know about temporary cycles
when it suits them, and blame everything on them the rest of the
time? *lol
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

I'm consistent. *I've always believed that natural changes and ocillations
are responsible - both for the warming in the 80s and 90s and the cooling in
the 00s. * From your own link:

"During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the
oscillation's warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are
reversed."

The entire AGW crisis phenomenon is built on the warming seen during the 80s
and 90s. *Now you apparently agree that this was just a climate
oscillation - not due to CO2. * You must then also agree that AGW is just a
big mistake.

Hay Bob! Do you know how to read a graph?

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

The trends you spoke of, the 1980's and 1990's,
they are only in your imagination. Anyone speaking
of global climate trends shorter than three decades
is a fool who needs an introductory course in
statistics.