 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Roger Coppock... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA
http://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 at
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
The Mean October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chemist... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
[/quote]
CO2 is not the cause. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Agent Orange... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 2:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
[/quote]
Repeat after me: weather is not climate.....weather is not
climate....
(that is, unless weather data supports AGW) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chemist <tom-bolger at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
CO2 is not the cause.
[/quote]
Never mind, this is GISS surface data, which is proven to be more than 90%
corrupt data.
See www.surfacestations.org
Providing this data for scientifical use is simply a fraud.
--
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause
of increases in greenhouse gases."
[IPCC report, censored paragraph] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
[quote]chemist <tom-bolger at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
CO2 is not the cause.
Never mind, this is GISS surface data, which is proven to be more than 90%
corrupt data.
See www.surfacestations.org
Providing this data for scientifical use is simply a fraud.
[/quote]
We're still waiting for your Excel chart with graph and trend line, Mr
Windmill. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
chemist wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
CO2 is not the cause.
said chemist, waving his hands in the air as proof.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chemist... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 11:50 am, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]chemist wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
CO2 is not the cause.
said chemist, waving his hands in the air as proof.
[/quote]
Can you prove that CO2 is the cause?
The ice data do not prove it .
Warming the sea by a few degrees would release CO2
and this CO2 would reabsorbed on cooling.
(Try calculating the effects on CO2 in the sea when
its temperature is changed.This will show the cause
of the change in CO2 in the air.
The hockey stick denies history and has been proved
wrong.
Melting ice only proves that the Earth is Warming. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Catoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So what if it's a little warmer? I would expect that as we continue
to come out of the Little Ice Age.
It's not "Our Fault" and could have even more postive benefits then
negatives.
Ever tried to look on the bright side of things ? .....yeah, you
see it as an opportunity to do more leftist "social engineering" ! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 3:37 am, Peter Muehlbauer
<spamtrap... at (no spam) AT.frankenexpress.de> >
[ . . . ]
[quote]Never mind, this is GISS surface data, which is proven to be more than 90%
corrupt data.
[/quote]
If you have better data, Mr Muehlbauer, you
are more than welcome to publish them here.
However, considering your recent obvious lies,
we'll want complete documentation of the data. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roger Coppock... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 5:30 am, Agent Orange <agentorang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 2:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
Repeat after me: weather is not climate.....weather is not
climate....
[/quote]
Repeat, "130 years is climate" 100 times.
[quote]
(that is, unless weather data supports AGW)[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 17, 9:31 pm, chemist <tom-bol... at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 17, 11:50 am, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
chemist wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp... at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote:
October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA 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/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.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 October temperature over the last 130 years is 13.994 C.
The Variance is 0.06455.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2541.
Rxy 0.803044 Rxy^2 0.64488
TEMP = 13.637886 + (0.005437 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 232.441934
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.99999999999999999999999999999 (29 nines), which is darn close to
100%!
The month of October in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.345,
yet it was 14.66. <- This is 1.2 SIGMA above the
trend. Therefore, the warming continues to accelerate.
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.276226
Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.641677 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 15.221097
Rank of the months of October
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.72 0.726 2.86
2009 14.66 0.666 2.62 <--
2003 14.66 0.666 2.62
2006 14.59 0.596 2.35
2004 14.58 0.586 2.31
2008 14.54 0.546 2.15
2007 14.53 0.536 2.11
1997 14.50 0.506 1.99
2002 14.48 0.486 1.91
1995 14.44 0.446 1.76
2001 14.43 0.436 1.72
1998 14.40 0.406 1.60
1990 14.39 0.396 1.56
1994 14.38 0.386 1.52
MEAN 13.994 0.000 0.00
1904 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.294 -1.16
1902 13.69 -0.304 -1.20
1910 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1898 13.68 -0.314 -1.24
1913 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1908 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1892 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1884 13.67 -0.324 -1.28
1886 13.66 -0.334 -1.31
1882 13.65 -0.344 -1.35
1917 13.62 -0.374 -1.47
1903 13.58 -0.414 -1.63
1887 13.57 -0.424 -1.67
1912 13.47 -0.524 -2.06
The most recent 188 continuous months, or 15 years and 8 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1558 months of data on this data set:
-- 674 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 884 of them are below the norm.
This run of 188 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.
CO2 is not the cause.
said chemist, waving his hands in the air as proof.
Can you prove that CO2 is the cause?
The ice data do not prove it .
Warming the sea by a few degrees would release CO2
and this CO2 would reabsorbed on cooling.
(Try calculating the effects on CO2 in the sea when
its temperature is changed.This will show the cause
of the change in CO2 in the air.
The hockey stick denies history and has been proved
wrong.
Melting ice only proves that the Earth is Warming.
[/quote]
Well at least Tom Bolger knows about the earth warming. Most
denialists here insist it is cooling. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o. n.o.b... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6-9ffd-3815666930de at (no spam) l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
[/quote]
.... thanks to urban heat island effect!
Poor Station Location Causes Warm Temperature Bias
Roger Pielke Sr
February 19 2008
Photographic Documentation of Poor Sitings - Part III From Our JGR Paper
Part I and II of this series of weblogs, discussed the serious limited value
of the use of a global average surface temperature anomaly to diagnose the
global radiative imbalance (i.e., global climate heat system changes), and
of a warm bias in the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature
trend when the minimum temperatures are used in its construction.
In Part III, we discuss yet another serious issue that we raised in our
paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229,
where we report,
Major problems with the microclimate exposure of a subset of surface
Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites have been photographed Easterling et
al. 1996; Davey and Pielke 2005]. The temperature instruments that are used
in the HCN are often sited close to buildings, under trees, and near other
local influences on the microclimate. These microclimate influences also
change over time."
The issue of the spatial and temporal representation of the temperature data
that is collected is so fundamental that it is a scandal for any climate
assessment that constructs a global average surface temperature to ignore
this issue.
Anthony Watts has, therefore, provided us a critically important study to
document these surface temperature measurement sites, since the US
government agency tasked with this responsibility (the National Climate Data
Center; NCDC) has refused to provide this photographic documentation,
despite information that they actually have accomplished this task (the
implication is that they are too embarrassed to show them to the public).
The extensive photographic library already completed under the direction of
Anthony Watts with his volunteers can be accessed at "Weather Stations".
This a rich source of information, and I urge readers of Climate Science to
access his website.
Two further excellent examples of further analysis of the issue of poor
station exposure can be read at
Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster, and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile
metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record
revisited International Journal of Climatology
and
Brooks, Ashley Victoria. M.S., Purdue University, May, 2007. Assessment of
the Spatiotemporal Impacts of Land Use Land Cover Change on the Historical
Climate Network Temperature Trends in Indiana. Major Professors: Dev Niyogi
and Michael Baldwin.
The message from these analyses is that the use of the surface temperature
record from such observation sites to construct regional-, zonal- and
global- averages introduces a bias (which is expected to be a significant
warm bias) of an unknown magnitude. That this issue has not been questioned
in the climate assessments nor by most of the media reports of the
assessments is a scandal.
The conclusions we have reached with respect to the poor siting of the
surface temperature measurement sites, for use in multi-decadal trend
assessments, include:
the poorly sited locations can not be "corrected" by using nearby better
sited locations in order to provide added sources of independent data; see
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N.
Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X.
Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases
associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change
assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928., where we concluded
that"The use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a
false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air
temperature trend assessments".
The serious problem with poor sited surface temperature stations is a
worldwide problem, based on our sampling so far (e.g., see for Mongolia and
see for a range of locations around the globe).
The World Meteorological Organization and the National Climate Date Center
have been derelict in obtaining photographic documentation of these
observing sites.
Readers of Climate Science are encouraged to photograph the surface
temperature sites in their country of residence, that are used to construct
the land based contribution to the global average surface temperature
anomalies, and send to Anthony Watts in be included in his very important
(and essential) archiving of this information (his website for this is Watts
Up With That and at Anthony Watt's Searchable Online Data Base ).
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/19/photographic-documentation-of-poor-sitings-part-iii-from-our-jgr-paper/
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o. n.o.b... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6-9ffd-3815666930de at (no spam) l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
[/quote]
.... thanks to urban heat island effect!
Poor Station Location Causes Warm Temperature Bias
Roger Pielke Sr
February 19 2008
Photographic Documentation of Poor Sitings - Part III From Our JGR Paper
Part I and II of this series of weblogs, discussed the serious limited value
of the use of a global average surface temperature anomaly to diagnose the
global radiative imbalance (i.e., global climate heat system changes), and
of a warm bias in the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature
trend when the minimum temperatures are used in its construction.
In Part III, we discuss yet another serious issue that we raised in our
paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229,
where we report,
Major problems with the microclimate exposure of a subset of surface
Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites have been photographed Easterling et
al. 1996; Davey and Pielke 2005]. The temperature instruments that are used
in the HCN are often sited close to buildings, under trees, and near other
local influences on the microclimate. These microclimate influences also
change over time."
The issue of the spatial and temporal representation of the temperature data
that is collected is so fundamental that it is a scandal for any climate
assessment that constructs a global average surface temperature to ignore
this issue.
Anthony Watts has, therefore, provided us a critically important study to
document these surface temperature measurement sites, since the US
government agency tasked with this responsibility (the National Climate Data
Center; NCDC) has refused to provide this photographic documentation,
despite information that they actually have accomplished this task (the
implication is that they are too embarrassed to show them to the public).
The extensive photographic library already completed under the direction of
Anthony Watts with his volunteers can be accessed at "Weather Stations".
This a rich source of information, and I urge readers of Climate Science to
access his website.
Two further excellent examples of further analysis of the issue of poor
station exposure can be read at
Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster, and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile
metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record
revisited International Journal of Climatology
and
Brooks, Ashley Victoria. M.S., Purdue University, May, 2007. Assessment of
the Spatiotemporal Impacts of Land Use Land Cover Change on the Historical
Climate Network Temperature Trends in Indiana. Major Professors: Dev Niyogi
and Michael Baldwin.
The message from these analyses is that the use of the surface temperature
record from such observation sites to construct regional-, zonal- and
global- averages introduces a bias (which is expected to be a significant
warm bias) of an unknown magnitude. That this issue has not been questioned
in the climate assessments nor by most of the media reports of the
assessments is a scandal.
The conclusions we have reached with respect to the poor siting of the
surface temperature measurement sites, for use in multi-decadal trend
assessments, include:
the poorly sited locations can not be "corrected" by using nearby better
sited locations in order to provide added sources of independent data; see
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N.
Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X.
Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases
associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change
assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928., where we concluded
that"The use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a
false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air
temperature trend assessments".
The serious problem with poor sited surface temperature stations is a
worldwide problem, based on our sampling so far (e.g., see for Mongolia and
see for a range of locations around the globe).
The World Meteorological Organization and the National Climate Date Center
have been derelict in obtaining photographic documentation of these
observing sites.
Readers of Climate Science are encouraged to photograph the surface
temperature sites in their country of residence, that are used to construct
the land based contribution to the global average surface temperature
anomalies, and send to Anthony Watts in be included in his very important
(and essential) archiving of this information (his website for this is Watts
Up With That and at Anthony Watt's Searchable Online Data Base ).
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/19/photographic-documentation-of-poor-sitings-part-iii-from-our-jgr-paper/
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o. n.o.b... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6-9ffd-3815666930de at (no spam) l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
[/quote]
Let's put this junk science into perspective ....
Imagine a 1km long tube of atmosphere.
How much of that length is represented by CO2?
ANSWER: 38cm!
And the human CO2 contribution?
ANSWER: Less than 1mm!
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| o. n.o.b... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock at (no spam) adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6-9ffd-3815666930de at (no spam) l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:
[/quote]
Let's put this junk science into perspective ....
Imagine a 1km long tube of atmosphere.
How much of that length is represented by CO2?
ANSWER: 38cm!
And the human CO2 contribution?
ANSWER: Less than 1mm!
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:26 pm
|
|