October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
Roger Coppock
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.
chemist
> 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
>
> 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.
>
CO2 is not the cause.
Tom P
> corrupt data.
> See www.surfacestations.org
>
> Providing this data for scientifical use is simply a fraud.
>
We're still waiting for your Excel chart with graph and trend line, Mr
Windmill.
Tom P
Agent Orange
> October tied for second warmest on the 130-year NASA record.
Repeat after me: weather is not climate.....weather is not
climate....
(that is, unless weather data supports AGW)
chemist
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.
Catoni
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" !
Roger Coppock
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> >
[ . . . ]
> Never mind, this is GISS surface data, which is proven to be more than 90%
> corrupt data.
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.
Roger Coppock
> On Nov 17, 2:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@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....
Repeat, "130 years is climate" 100 times.
JohnM
Well at least Tom Bolger knows about the earth warming. Most
denialists here insist it is cooling.
o. n.o.b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
... 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 ).
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
o. n.o.b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
... thanks to urban heat island effect!
o. n.o.b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
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!
o. n.o.b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:8708ee88-3b83-43b6...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> In the real world,
> outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
> global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
> Please see:
>
Let's put this junk science into perspective ....
tunderbar
> 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
>
> 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.
>
Nice cherry picking. October is not representative of a 30 year trend.
Is it?
JohnM
A bit more. ca. 129 years in actual fact.
tunderbar
That predates the manmade co2, doesn't it?
JohnM
Depends where you take your dates from. Usual choice is the start of
the industrial revolution, around 1850. Reliable temperature records
generally considered to have started in 1880.
Catoni
>"Depends where you take your dates from. Usual choice is the start
of
>the industrial revolution, around 1850. Reliable temperature records
>generally considered to have started in 1880"
Reply:
Hmmm...I see. 1850..... right around the time we
started coming out of the Little Ice Age......how convenient.
tunderbar
And did we start producing copious amounts of co2 in 1880? Enough to
change the climate? Back then?
We really did not start producing much co2 until the late 1900's. Read
your history. Do your research. Quit assuming crap.
Agent Orange
> On Nov 17, 5:30 am, Agent Orange <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 2:27 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@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....
>
> Repeat, "130 years is climate" 100 times.
Repeat, "1000 years is a better gauge of climate than 130 years" a
hundred times, nincompoop. On a geologic scale, 130 years doesn't
even register. It's just 0.00000289% of the available data. It's
like trying to determine what's going to happen 100 years from now by
looking at weather changes over the last minute and a half.
It's absurd. And you know it.
mrbawana2u
>
All your garbage proved nothing, you pathetic brain cancer infected
retard.
How much time do you have left?
John M.
You asked:
That predates the manmade co2, doesn't it?
I replied:
Depends where you take your dates from. Usual choice is the start of
the industrial revolution, around 1850.
As coal was being burned before, and peat for a long time before that,
my answer was correct. The dates do depend on what you mean by man-
made, but there is no doubt that from ca. 1850 onwards fossil fuels
were used for more than just domestic heating.
John M.
You'd better log on to Wikipedia quickly, and change this paragraph
pronto, before somebody else reads it.
"...current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of
anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional
terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have
limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
temperature changes in past centuries."
John M.
> So the moon didn't exist before.
>
> ROFLMAO
> What an idiot you are.
Hey there Mr Mulebrain. Do you still reckon increasing CO2 is all you
need to make plants grow faster. Bwahahahaha..... Go and wrap a parcel
and stop bothering your pretty head about stuff you have no chance of
ever understanding.
Catoni
>"You'd better log on to Wikipedia quickly, and change this paragraph
>pronto, before somebody else reads it.
>"...current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of
>anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional
>terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have
>limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
>temperature changes in past centuries." "
Reply:
Let me see if I have this right.....
Are you saying that Wikipedia is now a scientifically accurate
source of information?
I ask this because in the past I was laughed at by some Alarmists
in this group for using Wikipedia.
Or are articles in Wikipedia legitimate only when the support the
Alarmist theory?
Another question John...
Do you claim there was no such thing as the Little Ice Age or the
Medieval Warm Period ?????
Because I could use Wikipedia to show you otherwise.
JohnM
> John M typed:
>
> >"You'd better log on to Wikipedia quickly, and change this paragraph
> >pronto, before somebody else reads it.
> >"...current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of
> >anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional
> >terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have
> >limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
> >temperature changes in past centuries." "
>
> Reply:
>
> Let me see if I have this right.....
> Are you saying that Wikipedia is now a scientifically accurate
> source of information?
No. I'm saying log on to W/P and change the text, if you think you are
correct and the previous author was wrong. You can then argue your
case with other Wikipedians when they challenge your edit.
> I ask this because in the past I was laughed at by some Alarmists
> in this group for using Wikipedia.
>
> Or are articles in Wikipedia legitimate only when the support the
> Alarmist theory?
>
> Another question John...
>
> Do you claim there was no such thing as the Little Ice Age or the
> Medieval Warm Period ?????
>
> Because I could use Wikipedia to show you otherwise.
I prefer to see the real evidence, which is far from all being in.
Proxies that are currently emerging are shedding doubt on the global
nature of these events. Both of them were punctuated with spells when
there were reversed periods, and both seem to be largely missing in
the southern hemisphere records thus far.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the final definition,
however, because they are pretty irrelevant in the face of what is
happening today.
JohnM
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> NOBODY wrote of "IS ALL to make plants grow faster", dork.
Now we know why you use X-NoArchive for your posts. Fortunately
what you said is recorded for posterity in my reply.
Everyone have a look at what this lying piece of excrement said at:
850a5edd-8e1b-41c5...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
JohnM
>
> Hey, you illiterate son of Al Gore... (again)
>
> I wrote, they can HANDLE ALL THE CO2, not IS ALL to make plants grow faster,
> full dork.
>
> Maybe you are able to read, but you can't understand a basic meaning.
So they "handle" all the CO2 but they don't "grow faster", eh? Very
neat trick by that pesky vegetation.
JohnM
> people.
> You really should go back to elementary school and catch up what you obviously
> missed.
Why not explain to the readers exactly how you think a plant can
absorb more CO2 yet not actually grow any faster than it would under a
normal uptake.
JohnM
> I won't do some exercise with you as for you're one of the few people that
> can't catch that. You don't have enough money for my work to teach you.
>
> But let me tell you an old AGW trick:
> Do a Google search on it.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA
> End of effectless discussion
Your surrender is accepted.