Science and Technology news... :: View topic - September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s gl

Roger Coppock · Guest

September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry>s spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 129 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean September temperature over the last 129 years is 14.030 C.
The Variance is 0.07580.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.2753.

Rxy 0.704 Rxy^2 0.496
TEMP = 13.691974 + (0.005205 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 124.79259
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999 (19 nines)
The month of September in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.363,
yet it was 14.67. <-- 1.1 SIGMA above the projection!
The sum of the residuals is 20.00444

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.695685 * e^(.0003714 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 19.95477

Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.85 0.820 2.98
2007 14.71 0.680 2.47
2003 14.71 0.680 2.47
2008 14.67 0.640 2.32 <--
2006 14.65 0.620 2.25
2002 14.62 0.590 2.14
2001 14.59 0.560 2.03
2004 14.51 0.480 1.74
1991 14.50 0.470 1.71
1998 14.49 0.460 1.67
1983 14.49 0.460 1.67
1989 14.45 0.420 1.52
1988 14.45 0.420 1.52
MEAN 14.030 0.000 0.00
1907 13.71 -0.320 -1.16
1883 13.70 -0.330 -1.20
1935 13.69 -0.340 -1.24
1917 13.69 -0.340 -1.24
1888 13.67 -0.360 -1.31
1964 13.61 -0.420 -1.53
1902 13.60 -0.430 -1.56
1892 13.60 -0.430 -1.56
1903 13.59 -0.440 -1.60
1904 13.58 -0.450 -1.64
1912 13.56 -0.470 -1.71
1891 13.52 -0.510 -1.85
1887 13.51 -0.520 -1.89
1894 13.48 -0.550 -2.00

The most recent 190 continuous months, or 15 years and 10 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1545 months of data on this data set:
-- 756 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 789 of them are below the norm.
This run of 190 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.

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
[/quote]
IMVHO,
there is no one single 'magic bullet' solution to
the global warming crisis; there are very many.
One of those many solutions is nuclear energy.

columbiaaccidentinvestiga · Guest

On Oct 10, 6:23 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:"The magic
bullet is probably fusion. But that isn>t going to happen any time
soon. In the meantime, the solution IS nuclear."

na...

Peter Franks · Guest

Roger Coppock wrote:
[quote]September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
[/quote]
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

Peter Franks · Guest

Roger Coppock wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

IMVHO,
there is no one single 'magic bullet' solution to
the global warming crisis; there are very many.
One of those many solutions is nuclear energy.
[/quote]
Well, the 'sleight-of-hand' bullet is nuclear. Nothing else even comes
close -- nothing.

The magic bullet is probably fusion. But that isn>t going to happen any
time soon. In the meantime, the solution IS nuclear.

John M. · Guest

On Oct 11, 3:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 6:23 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:"The magic
bullet is probably fusion. But that isn>t going to happen any time
soon. In the meantime, the solution IS nuclear."

na...
[/quote]
The magic bullet appears to be global financial collapse, so we can
all pack up and head for the hills now. There won>t be any money for
many of the companies along the chain that supplies nuclear fuel, at
least in non-socialist nations. N. Korea and Iran should do just fine,
except they want the stuff for bombs, not electricity.

chemist · Guest

On Oct 11, 1:46 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

IMVHO,
there is no one single 'magic bullet' solution to
the global warming crisis; there are very many.
One of those many solutions is nuclear energy.
AGW is not a CRISIS Roger its a SCAM[/quote]
You are still using Hansen>s dodgy temperatures
Show us how Sept stacks up against Hadley please

Guest

On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
[/quote]
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.

CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.

Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.

KD

John M. · Guest

On Oct 11, 4:01 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...

Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.

CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.

Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
[/quote]
Wrong. Environmentalists have long opposed the use of nuclear,
preferring solutions such as better building insulation, more fuel
efficient motors, combined heat and power generators. Take a look at
Sweden to see how well these things can work in a modern society that
is not wedded to global capitalism.

John M. · Guest

On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.

CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.

Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.

Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn>t change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.
[/quote]
If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.

Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.

*Poetic Justice* · Guest

John M. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 4:01 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.

CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.

Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.

Wrong. Environmentalists have long opposed the use of nuclear,
preferring solutions such as better building insulation, more fuel
efficient motors, combined heat and power generators. Take a look at
Sweden to see how well these things can work in a modern society that
is not wedded to global capitalism.
[/quote]

So another Eco-Warrior promotes Socialism, their conversion of America
to Socialism is what>s causing the economic collapse, Houses for the
poor and high gas prices to push us farther into government intervention
of energy supply and demand.

Economic crash.... thank Socialism.

--
*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.
2. Spend thy Neighbors money to keep your Brothers in the comfort zone,
that which makes him happy.
3. That which is not Liberal is Evil, use any means possible to promote
Liberal/socialist agenda.
4. Do not covet Success and achievement, teach others to strive for
mediocrity.
5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.
6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.
7. Tithe all you have and will have to our cause, for that which is not
spent, will come back.
8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.
9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.
10. Life is above all else... until it would interfere with ones choice.

Peter Franks · Guest

kdthrge@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.

Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.

Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!

You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.

CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.

Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
[/quote]
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn>t change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.

columbiaaccidentinvestiga · Guest

On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]John M. wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.
CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.
Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn>t change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.

If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.

Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.

Conservation is to conserve; there is NO progression from conservation.

We need a solution for new energy sources. Conservation will not get us
there in any way, shape or form.

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site. Now somebody like you who thinks one thing "is" a
solution, but does not offer up solutions to problems associated with
the byproducts of nuclear power, has nothing to offer on this issue
except capital letters REPEATING the same idiotic opinions...

Peter Franks · Guest

John M. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.
CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.
Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.

Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.

Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn>t change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.

If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.

Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.
[/quote]
Conservation is to conserve; there is NO progression from conservation.

We need a solution for new energy sources. Conservation will not get us
there in any way, shape or form.

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.

Guest

On Oct 11, 8:12 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site. Now somebody like you who thinks one thing "is" a
solution, but does not offer up solutions to problems associated with
the byproducts of nuclear power, has nothing to offer on this issue
except capital letters REPEATING the same idiotic opinions
[/quote]
Then the greenie weenies better look around to see who they are in bed
with. The right wingers who buy the bullshit science of climate
scaremongering are all for nuclear power. If McCain gets into office,
these 'liberals' better watch out as the enforcement and programs of
the right wing are ruthlessly imposed upon the lower and middle
classes.

The cost of building nuclear plants is prohibitive. The only means to
pay for them is government subsidy and deficit spending. So what sense
does this make?
The cost of electricity must be increased beyond imagination, or the
'private' companies must be supported by the government which is a
fiasco. Maybe the rich people will offer to pay much higher taxes so
that the average person will not have to pay 10 times or greater
electricity bills.

I guess Franks will be the one that allows the reactor to built at the
end of his street while he donates at least 3/4 of his income to
support it. It is always nice to see such interest and pledges of
support for the solution to the non-problem of AGW. Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

KD


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2