 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF... |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zorro <zorrozed at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of millions of readings
taken at stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data
are corrected for the urban heat island effect.
The Mean September temperature over the last 130 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.1214.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3484.
Rxy 0.5073 Rxy^2 0.2573
TEMP = 13.71464 + (0.00471 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 44.355302
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999 (9 nines)
The month of September in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.327,
yet it was 14.85. <- 1.5 SIGMA above the trend,
therefore, the warming accelerated.
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7605
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.721718 * e^(.0003341 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7380
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
2008 14.80 0.777 2.23
1996 14.65 0.627 1.80
2007 14.64 0.617 1.77
2003 14.63 0.607 1.74
2001 14.63 0.607 1.74
2005 14.62 0.597 1.71
1989 14.61 0.587 1.68
1983 14.57 0.547 1.57
2002 14.55 0.527 1.51
1988 14.55 0.527 1.51
2006 14.49 0.467 1.34
1991 14.48 0.457 1.31
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1917 13.58 -0.443 -1.27
1968 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1954 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1964 13.54 -0.483 -1.39
1931 13.53 -0.493 -1.42
1923 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1906 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1903 13.51 -0.513 -1.47
1902 13.48 -0.543 -1.56
1892 13.44 -0.583 -1.67
1887 13.38 -0.643 -1.85
1925 13.29 -0.733 -2.10
1935 13.27 -0.753 -2.16
1894 13.26 -0.763 -2.19
1891 13.13 -0.893 -2.56
The most recent 40 continuous months, or 3 years and 4 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1557 months of data on this data set:
-- 791 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 766 of them are below the norm.
Remember, this is Roger's data, I didn't make it up.
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
OH NO, September 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, is 0.03 C warmer
than September 1882 in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 127 years, we have warmed by 0.03 C.
Quick, we have to do something fast, before the temperature drops
below what it was in 1882. Quickly everybody, generate some more CO2.
[/quote]
More CO2 won't affect temperature.
There is no link between temperature and CO2.
And Roger et al is still not able to explain, where all that doooooming
warming is coming from but from a shitty peace of computer software.
--
[quote][Roger Coppock, wannabe statistician, in alt.global-warming]
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[/quote]
replace all the datacenters for Global Climate Models? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Roger Coppock <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
[/quote]
Yeah, we've watched the "rise" since 10 years.
Please tell the climate to obey Roger... NOW!
http://img.umweltluege.de/h/award.jpg
--
[quote][Roger Coppock, wannabe statistician, in alt.global-warming]
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[/quote]
replace all the datacenters for Global Climate Models? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 5:12 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]With the level of statistical comprehension thes ignoramuses are
showing, don't even think of explaining the occurrence, significance
and treatment of outliers in a data set, Roger.
[/quote]
Yes, I do have to scale back the procedures use
with this crowd of fossil fools. I keep hoping that
one day there'll be an intelligent discussion,
For example, the 'known variance' technique,
using the variance of the entire data set to
examine the trends of more recent data.
Among the informed, that would quickly put
an end to claims 'cooling during the last 10
years.' This group isn't that mathematically
sophisticated however. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 12:51 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to two
decimal places. When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or possibly 0.5
degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the accuracy of the data.
I think you need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.
[/quote]
An introductory course in statistics would teach you
how to calculate the "Standard error of the mean."
The inverse of the square root of the number of samples
is a small fraction when there are thousands of samples.
Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error_(statistics) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
<rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 5:12Â am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[ . . . ]
With the level of statistical comprehension thes ignoramuses are
showing, don't even think of explaining the occurrence, significance
and treatment of outliers in a data set, Roger.
Yes, I do have to scale back the procedures use
with this crowd of fossil fools. I keep hoping that
one day there'll be an intelligent discussion,
For example, the 'known variance' technique,
using the variance of the entire data set to
examine the trends of more recent data.
Among the informed, that would quickly put
an end to claims 'cooling during the last 10
years.' This group isn't that mathematically
sophisticated however.
[/quote]
Warming would be fine, it is the plateau
that condemns the manipulation of the data
set, nature can make it warmer, manipulation
of the data set can only achieve a plateau if
errors are introduced.
As I remember, there was a time when
having domed cities was considered, malls
are built for the same reason, to stay warm
and dry and comfortable, 15 C is not very
warm, run that program again, maybe you
can get 16 C.
Any chance you might decide to do
something useful, civilization has better
things to do than worry about what future
tellers say, the Farmer's Almanac enjoys
a lot more interest than you and GISS. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Falcon wrote:
[quote]Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Ouroboros Rex wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:53 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
[ . . . ]
If it comes from NASA those numbers are
meaningless since September is the beginning
of spring in the Southern hemisphere.
September was beginning of Spring in the Southern Hemisphere for
every one of the last 130 years. NASA data say this September
was the warmest in all those 130 years.
Global SST anomalies fell slighty between August and September,
the majority of the decline in the Northern Hemisphere.
September 2009 Southern Hemisphere SST Anomalies:
Monthly Change = -0.019 deg C
http://i34.tinypic.com/5ocuw4.png
The Optimally Interpolated Sea Surface Temperature Data (OISST)
are available through the NOAA National Operational Model Archive
& Distribution System (NOMADS).
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?lite
Thanks, that's sea surface temperature.
IPCC AR4 has something to say about SSTs.
I suspect it does.
It does. It's pretty well connected according to the IPCC. Their sea
level rise predictions are based on global atmospheric temperature
predictions. The predicted rise in global air temperature (but see
UAH below) leads to a rise in global SST and a corresponding rise in
sea levels.
Neither AR4 or SSTs are the subject, do you have
anything on the September southern hemisphere in general? SSTs have
been rising predicably with the new record having been set this past
June.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/jun/glob-jun-pg.gif
Curious. I could be mistaken but it doesn't appear show the dip to
near zero global SST anomaly recorded in the NOMADS dataset for 2000.
see http://i33.tinypic.com/33e0vao.png
[/quote]
Your cite does not allow me to see who or where your picture is from or
what it actually shows. Cites to pictures removed from their original works
are essentially useless. Further, NOMADS is a simulation, intended to run
for 2 years starting in 1995. How is it relevant?
I'd like to see the data on
[quote]which they base this analysis. It doesn't look like they used the
NOMADS data (published by the NOAA) at all, unless it's been heavily
corrected for some reason.
[/quote]
Here's the main page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2009&month=jun
[quote]
SST readings were particularly suspect prior to the start of the
Argos Buoy project in 2003.
[/quote]
Not enough to create a century long trend.
Even now they're considered inaccurate
[quote]enough to be subject to 'correction' by the Argos team prior to
release.
[/quote]
The Argos team had massive error problems. I doubt they are correcting
the work of others.
[quote]
You might be interested in this.
UAH Globally averaged temps - lower atmosphere.
http://tinypic.com/r/mwql39/4
[/quote]
Another cite that hides the authors and methodology. UAH has had its own
set of error problems and is routinely misrepresented by at least one of the
investigators, including in a presentation to Congress. You don't even have
a version number for me.
[quote]
Not sure about the southern hemisphere alone. Do you mean land-based
station temperature, lower atmosphere, or SST?
[/quote]
See article. =) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 1:51 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> should have
written:
[quote]I think I need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.
[/quote]
But we all know he won't, don't we. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 6:23 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 1:51 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> should have
written:
I think I need to take an introductory lesson in statistics.
But we all know he won't, don't we.
[/quote]
It's asking too much of fossil fools to take a college course.
After Seung-Hui Cho shot up Virginia Tech, they're trying
to keep psychopaths off campuses. So a fossil fool can't
enroll for a course, anyway. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
[quote]Zorro <zorrozed at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of millions of readings
taken at stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data
are corrected for the urban heat island effect.
The Mean September temperature over the last 130 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.1214.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3484.
Rxy 0.5073 Rxy^2 0.2573
TEMP = 13.71464 + (0.00471 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 44.355302
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999 (9 nines)
The month of September in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.327,
yet it was 14.85. <- 1.5 SIGMA above the trend,
therefore, the warming accelerated.
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7605
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.721718 * e^(.0003341 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7380
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
2008 14.80 0.777 2.23
1996 14.65 0.627 1.80
2007 14.64 0.617 1.77
2003 14.63 0.607 1.74
2001 14.63 0.607 1.74
2005 14.62 0.597 1.71
1989 14.61 0.587 1.68
1983 14.57 0.547 1.57
2002 14.55 0.527 1.51
1988 14.55 0.527 1.51
2006 14.49 0.467 1.34
1991 14.48 0.457 1.31
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1917 13.58 -0.443 -1.27
1968 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1954 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1964 13.54 -0.483 -1.39
1931 13.53 -0.493 -1.42
1923 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1906 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1903 13.51 -0.513 -1.47
1902 13.48 -0.543 -1.56
1892 13.44 -0.583 -1.67
1887 13.38 -0.643 -1.85
1925 13.29 -0.733 -2.10
1935 13.27 -0.753 -2.16
1894 13.26 -0.763 -2.19
1891 13.13 -0.893 -2.56
The most recent 40 continuous months, or 3 years and 4 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1557 months of data on this data set:
-- 791 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 766 of them are below the norm.
Remember, this is Roger's data, I didn't make it up.
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
OH NO, September 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, is 0.03 C warmer
than September 1882 in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 127 years, we have warmed by 0.03 C.
Quick, we have to do something fast, before the temperature drops
below what it was in 1882. Quickly everybody, generate some more CO2.
[/quote]
See below for an explanation of your foolishness...
[quote]More CO2 won't affect temperature.
There is no link between temperature and CO2.
And Roger et al is still not able to explain, where all that doooooming
warming is coming from but from a shitty peace of computer software.
[/quote]
I looked at the GISS data using Open Office spreadsheet and sure enough,
the results are the same as Roger's. Peter M is welcome to repeat the
analysis himself using any other commercial package like Excel.
If you plot the data out, several things become apparent.
Firstly, the trend is monotonous, there is a continuous linear rise in
temperature of around 0.04 per decade.
Second, the scattering of the data points is very large from 1880-1890
then becomes steadily more stable.
Thirdly, data prior to 1880 is missing - there is none available to give
the DJF and D-N fields.
These last two observations suggest that the 1880-1890 data are based on
a very small number of recording stations. Bear in mind that in the
19th century, this would be someone looking at the thermometer and
writing down a value to the nearest whole degree. In other words, what
we see in the data for the first decade is simply digital noise caused
by averaging a small number of discrete values.
That means that singling out and comparing a single 1880 data point with
the 2009 data point is simply comparing a white noise signal peak with a
highly reliable value - totally useless and misleading.
T.
T. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 2:11 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
[quote]JohnM wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:51 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
Yes, HA HA, it was 0.03 degrees warmer than 1882,
is that a typo, or a joke, as if a thermometer in 1882 could
be read within one whole degree.
Yet another fossil fool failure with a reading comprehension
problem. Read again, Mr. Guy, the data are the means of
multiple thermometers.
And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to
two decimal places. When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or
possibly 0.5 degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the
accuracy of the data. I think you need to take an introductory
lesson in statistics.
Just to illustrate how idiotic your reply is, try figuring the answer
to the following:
To the nearest year, individual ages of 11 people of my immediate
acquaintance are 67,66,69,71,70,63,67,70,69,66,68. So what is the
"age" of this group of people? N.b. the raw data is accurate, but
measured with a precision of +/- 6 mo.
That's a riot, because asking for the 'age' of a group is just as stupid as
asking for the 'temperature' of the earth!
[/quote]
Have you passed Grade 6 at your school yet? Because once you have you
may understand better. Ask teacher what the term "age group" means. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Last Post... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 8:53 pm, "b.o.n.z.o" <y... at (no spam) w.com> wrote:
[quote]Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
[/quote]
•• So spring came a week or two earlier this year
Of course the Met/Hadley is even worse than
GSS/NASA/NOAA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cat_in_awe... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
JohnM wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 1:51 pm, "Cat_in_awe" <rl3166... at (no spam) excite.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:06 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
Yes, HA HA, it was 0.03 degrees warmer than 1882,
is that a typo, or a joke, as if a thermometer in 1882 could
be read within one whole degree.
Yet another fossil fool failure with a reading comprehension
problem. Read again, Mr. Guy, the data are the means of
multiple thermometers.
And there is zero justification for reporting those temperatures to
two decimal places. When the raw data is accurate to a degree, (or
possibly 0.5 degree), reporting in the hundredths is falsifying the
accuracy of the data. I think you need to take an introductory
lesson in statistics.
Just to illustrate how idiotic your reply is, try figuring the answer
to the following:
To the nearest year, individual ages of 11 people of my immediate
acquaintance are 67,66,69,71,70,63,67,70,69,66,68. So what is the
"age" of this group of people? N.b. the raw data is accurate, but
measured with a precision of +/- 6 mo.
[/quote]
That's a riot, because asking for the 'age' of a group is just as stupid as
asking for the 'temperature' of the earth! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 7:56 am, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]I looked at the GISS data using Open Office spreadsheet and sure enough,
the results are the same as Roger's. Peter M is welcome to repeat the
analysis himself using any other commercial package like Excel.
[/quote]
You're a true skeptic, Tom.
[quote]
If you plot the data out, several things become apparent.
Firstly, the trend is monotonous, there is a continuous linear rise in
temperature of around 0.04 per decade.
[/quote]
It's not really quite that simple. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg
[quote]Second, the scattering of the data points is very large from 1880-1890
then becomes steadily more stable.
Thirdly, data prior to 1880 is missing - there is none available to give
the DJF and D-N fields.
These last two observations suggest that the 1880-1890 data are based on
a very small number of recording stations. Bear in mind that in the
19th century, this would be someone looking at the thermometer and
writing down a value to the nearest whole degree. In other words, what
we see in the data for the first decade is simply digital noise caused
by averaging a small number of discrete values.
[/quote]
Largely true. Note that there are records
prior to 1880, but they Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
[quote]
That means that singling out and comparing a single 1880 data point with
the 2009 data point is simply comparing a white noise signal peak with a
highly reliable value - totally useless and misleading.
[/quote]
Even if the number of stations were constant,
using only two points to determine a trend
ignores variance, and is doomed to be wrong.
This problem was identified and solved two
centuries ago, when linear regression was
invented. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom P <werotizy at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Zorro <zorrozed at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of millions of readings
taken at stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data
are corrected for the urban heat island effect.
The Mean September temperature over the last 130 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.1214.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3484.
Rxy 0.5073 Rxy^2 0.2573
TEMP = 13.71464 + (0.00471 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 44.355302
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999 (9 nines)
The month of September in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.327,
yet it was 14.85. <- 1.5 SIGMA above the trend,
therefore, the warming accelerated.
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7605
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.721718 * e^(.0003341 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7380
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
2008 14.80 0.777 2.23
1996 14.65 0.627 1.80
2007 14.64 0.617 1.77
2003 14.63 0.607 1.74
2001 14.63 0.607 1.74
2005 14.62 0.597 1.71
1989 14.61 0.587 1.68
1983 14.57 0.547 1.57
2002 14.55 0.527 1.51
1988 14.55 0.527 1.51
2006 14.49 0.467 1.34
1991 14.48 0.457 1.31
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1917 13.58 -0.443 -1.27
1968 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1954 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1964 13.54 -0.483 -1.39
1931 13.53 -0.493 -1.42
1923 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1906 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1903 13.51 -0.513 -1.47
1902 13.48 -0.543 -1.56
1892 13.44 -0.583 -1.67
1887 13.38 -0.643 -1.85
1925 13.29 -0.733 -2.10
1935 13.27 -0.753 -2.16
1894 13.26 -0.763 -2.19
1891 13.13 -0.893 -2.56
The most recent 40 continuous months, or 3 years and 4 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1557 months of data on this data set:
-- 791 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 766 of them are below the norm.
Remember, this is Roger's data, I didn't make it up.
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
OH NO, September 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, is 0.03 C warmer
than September 1882 in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 127 years, we have warmed by 0.03 C.
Quick, we have to do something fast, before the temperature drops
below what it was in 1882. Quickly everybody, generate some more CO2.
See below for an explanation of your foolishness...
[/quote]
I'm looking and looking, but can't see any explanation...
[quote]More CO2 won't affect temperature.
There is no link between temperature and CO2.
And Roger et al is still not able to explain, where all that doooooming
warming is coming from but from a shitty peace of computer software.
I looked at the GISS data using Open Office spreadsheet and sure enough,
the results are the same as Roger's. Peter M is welcome to repeat the
analysis himself using any other commercial package like Excel.
If you plot the data out, several things become apparent.
Firstly, the trend is monotonous, there is a continuous linear rise in
temperature of around 0.04 per decade.
Second, the scattering of the data points is very large from 1880-1890
then becomes steadily more stable.
Thirdly, data prior to 1880 is missing - there is none available to give
the DJF and D-N fields.
These last two observations suggest that the 1880-1890 data are based on
a very small number of recording stations. Bear in mind that in the
19th century, this would be someone looking at the thermometer and
writing down a value to the nearest whole degree. In other words, what
we see in the data for the first decade is simply digital noise caused
by averaging a small number of discrete values.
That means that singling out and comparing a single 1880 data point with
the 2009 data point is simply comparing a white noise signal peak with a
highly reliable value - totally useless and misleading.
[/quote]
.... but only 91% defective data, you used to draw your conclusions.
How much significance would you give your pleadings? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 8:56 am, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Zorro <zorro... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:21 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
WARMEST SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEPTEMBER IN 130 YEARS OF NASA DATA!
It's 2.4 SIGMA above the mean Southern Hemisphere September
and 1.5 SIGMA above the 130-year linear trend.
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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA,http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of millions of readings
taken at stations covering the lands of the Southern
Hemisphere over the last 130 years. Yes, the data
are corrected for the urban heat island effect.
The Mean September temperature over the last 130 years is 14.023 C.
The Variance is 0.1214.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3484.
Rxy 0.5073 Rxy^2 0.2573
TEMP = 13.71464 + (0.00471 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 44.355302
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999 (9 nines)
The month of September in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.327,
yet it was 14.85. <- 1.5 SIGMA above the trend,
therefore, the warming accelerated.
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7605
Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.721718 * e^(.0003341 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 30.7380
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
2008 14.80 0.777 2.23
1996 14.65 0.627 1.80
2007 14.64 0.617 1.77
2003 14.63 0.607 1.74
2001 14.63 0.607 1.74
2005 14.62 0.597 1.71
1989 14.61 0.587 1.68
1983 14.57 0.547 1.57
2002 14.55 0.527 1.51
1988 14.55 0.527 1.51
2006 14.49 0.467 1.34
1991 14.48 0.457 1.31
MEAN 14.023 0.000 0.00
1917 13.58 -0.443 -1.27
1968 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1954 13.56 -0.463 -1.33
1964 13.54 -0.483 -1.39
1931 13.53 -0.493 -1.42
1923 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1906 13.52 -0.503 -1.44
1903 13.51 -0.513 -1.47
1902 13.48 -0.543 -1.56
1892 13.44 -0.583 -1.67
1887 13.38 -0.643 -1.85
1925 13.29 -0.733 -2.10
1935 13.27 -0.753 -2.16
1894 13.26 -0.763 -2.19
1891 13.13 -0.893 -2.56
The most recent 40 continuous months, or 3 years and 4 months,
on this SH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1557 months of data on this data set:
-- 791 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 766 of them are below the norm.
Remember, this is Roger's data, I didn't make it up.
Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2009 14.85 0.827 2.37 <--
1882 14.82 0.797 2.29
OH NO, September 2009 in the Southern Hemisphere, is 0.03 C warmer
than September 1882 in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 127 years, we have warmed by 0.03 C.
Quick, we have to do something fast, before the temperature drops
below what it was in 1882. Quickly everybody, generate some more CO2.
See below for an explanation of your foolishness...
More CO2 won't affect temperature.
There is no link between temperature and CO2.
And Roger et al is still not able to explain, where all that doooooming
warming is coming from but from a shitty peace of computer software.
I looked at the GISS data using Open Office spreadsheet and sure enough,
the results are the same as Roger's. Peter M is welcome to repeat the
analysis himself using any other commercial package like Excel.
If you plot the data out, several things become apparent.
Firstly, the trend is monotonous, there is a continuous linear rise in
temperature of around 0.04 per decade.
Second, the scattering of the data points is very large from 1880-1890
then becomes steadily more stable.
Thirdly, data prior to 1880 is missing - there is none available to give
the DJF and D-N fields.
These last two observations suggest that the 1880-1890 data are based on
a very small number of recording stations. Bear in mind that in the
19th century, this would be someone looking at the thermometer and
writing down a value to the nearest whole degree. In other words, what
we see in the data for the first decade is simply digital noise caused
by averaging a small number of discrete values.
That means that singling out and comparing a single 1880 data point with
the 2009 data point is simply comparing a white noise signal peak with a
highly reliable value - totally useless and misleading.
[/quote]
No matter how much you spell it out for them, Tom, they won't get it.
Being willfully ignorant, Mr Inawe, Mr Muehlbauer and their ilk simply
ignore facts when these are staring them in the face. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:39 pm
|
|