Science and Technology news... :: View topic - September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s gl

Roger Coppock · Guest

September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land
and sea 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+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 129 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 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean September temperature over the last 129 years is 13.975 C.
The Variance is 0.05712.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2390.

Rxy 0.8182 Rxy^2 0.6694
TEMP = 13.63396 + (0.005251 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 257.131376
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999999 (31 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of September in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.311,
yet it was 14.49. <-- Above the projected
The sum of the residuals is 14.00797

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.637705 * e^(.0003739 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 13.93942

Rank of the months of September
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.68 0.705 2.95
2003 14.60 0.625 2.61
2006 14.55 0.575 2.40
2007 14.50 0.525 2.20
2008 14.49 0.515 2.15 <--
2002 14.48 0.505 2.11
2001 14.48 0.505 2.11
2004 14.46 0.485 2.03
1998 14.43 0.455 1.90
1997 14.41 0.435 1.82
1991 14.39 0.415 1.74
1983 14.35 0.375 1.57
1989 14.32 0.345 1.44
MEAN 13.975 0.000 0.00
1916 13.71 -0.265 -1.11
1907 13.71 -0.265 -1.11
1902 13.71 -0.265 -1.11
1883 13.71 -0.265 -1.11
1881 13.71 -0.265 -1.11
1913 13.70 -0.275 -1.15
1910 13.70 -0.275 -1.15
1884 13.67 -0.305 -1.28
1964 13.63 -0.345 -1.44
1894 13.63 -0.345 -1.44
1890 13.62 -0.355 -1.49
1904 13.59 -0.385 -1.61
1903 13.55 -0.425 -1.78
1912 13.50 -0.475 -1.99

The most recent 175 continuous months, or 14 years and 7 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.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:
-- 669 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 876 of them are below the norm.
This run of 175 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.

Joern Abatz · Guest

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

[quote]September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.
[/quote]
Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.

September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down

September
---- UAH
1998 +0.432 <== Peak
1999 +0.094 |
2000 +0.085 |
2001 +0.134 |
2002 +0.284 |
2003 +0.232 |
2004 +0.157 |
2005 +0.355 |
2006 +0.274 |
2007 +0.201 |
2008 +0.161 V Down

Joern

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.

Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.

September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down
[/quote]
Why stop at 2005?
This data set goes back to 1880.
4 points can not establish a trend.

If you want the whole truth, please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg

[quote]
September
---- UAH
1998 +0.432 <== Peak
1999 +0.094 |
2000 +0.085 |
2001 +0.134 |
2002 +0.284 |
2003 +0.232 |
2004 +0.157 |
2005 +0.355 |
2006 +0.274 |
2007 +0.201 |
2008 +0.161 V Down
[/quote]
Why stop at 1998?
This data set goes back to 1978.

if you want the whole truth, please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg

[quote]
Joern[/quote]

Earl Evleth · Guest

On 8/10/08 15:19, in article
871c4070-5ba3-460b-878e-77c9caa760bf@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Roger
Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote:

I will call attention that the summer data (land and sea) is shown
at

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

and the tabular data can be called up.

both sets of data have returned to the warmer side.

The data is not yet entered for the figure

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2008+2005+2007.pdf

Joern Abatz · Guest

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:19:22 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

[quote]September
---- UAH
1998 +0.432 <== Peak
1999 +0.094 |
2000 +0.085 |
2001 +0.134 |
2002 +0.284 |
2003 +0.232 |
2004 +0.157 |
2005 +0.355 |
2006 +0.274 |
2007 +0.201 |
2008 +0.161 V Down

Why stop at 1998?
[/quote]
Because warming peaked 1998.

[quote]This data set goes back to 1978.
[/quote]
Data goes back, time goes forward.

If you are so fascinated by a cold past, just wait five years. In five
years it might be as cold as 1879, maybe sooner. 2008 will most probably
be in the bottom third of the last 30 years. 2009 might even be the
coldest of the whole satellite data set.

What>s your prediction of 2008 and 2009? I already know, it>s this:

Coppock: 'Ok, fine, 2008 may be a bottom ten, and 2009 may end up even
colder, but what we have here - I can prove that statistically - is global
warming, no matter how cold it gets, because what I have is 129 inches, I
mean, 129 years of warming, and you can>t beat that unless you show us at
least (at least!) 30 years of cooling.'/Coppock

Joern

Bill Ward · Guest

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:00:35 +0100, Joern Abatz wrote:

[quote]On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:19:22 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

September
---- UAH
1998 +0.432 <== Peak
1999 +0.094 |
2000 +0.085 |
2001 +0.134 |
2002 +0.284 |
2003 +0.232 |
2004 +0.157 |
2005 +0.355 |
2006 +0.274 |
2007 +0.201 |
2008 +0.161 V Down

Why stop at 1998?

Because warming peaked 1998.

This data set goes back to 1978.

Data goes back, time goes forward.

If you are so fascinated by a cold past, just wait five years. In five
years it might be as cold as 1879, maybe sooner. 2008 will most probably
be in the bottom third of the last 30 years. 2009 might even be the
coldest of the whole satellite data set.

What>s your prediction of 2008 and 2009? I already know, it>s this:

Coppock: 'Ok, fine, 2008 may be a bottom ten, and 2009 may end up even
colder, but what we have here - I can prove that statistically - is global
warming, no matter how cold it gets, because what I have is 129 inches, I
mean, 129 years of warming, and you can>t beat that unless you show us at
least (at least!) 30 years of cooling.'/Coppock

Joern
[/quote]
Roger still hasn>t learned that a trend is what you expect, and data is
what you get. If he>d taken Stat 102, he might understand what his
program output means. Or not.

Joern Abatz · Guest

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:14:59 -0700, Bill Ward wrote:

[quote]Roger still hasn>t learned that a trend is what you expect, and data is
what you get. If he>d taken Stat 102, he might understand what his
program output means. Or not.
[/quote]
I like him.

Joern

Bill Ward · Guest

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:42:52 +0100, Joern Abatz wrote:

[quote]On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:14:59 -0700, Bill Ward wrote:

Roger still hasn>t learned that a trend is what you expect, and data is
what you get. If he>d taken Stat 102, he might understand what his
program output means. Or not.

I like him.

Joern
[/quote]
De gustibus non est disputandum.

John M. · Guest

On Oct 9, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.
Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.

September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down

Why stop at 2005?
This data set goes back to 1880.
4 points can not establish a trend.

How many points /can/ establish a trend? Please provide supporting
references.
[/quote]
The number depends on the extent to which the trend is a good fit to
each of them. A regression line doesn>t have to pass through any of
the points it joins up, but it needs to pass reasonably close.

A derived statistic representing the slope of the trend line is tested
to see if it fits the points better than one having zero slope. It may
well not pass the test with just a few points unless the trend is very
strong. As the number of points increases the presence of quite weak
trends can be detected, even when the individual points seem to be all
over the place.

Any number of references can be tracked down if you google for "linear
regression"

John M. · Guest

On Oct 9, 10:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]John M. wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.
Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.
September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down
Why stop at 2005?
This data set goes back to 1880.
4 points can not establish a trend.
How many points /can/ establish a trend? Please provide supporting
references.

The number depends on the extent to which the trend is a good fit to
each of them. A regression line doesn>t have to pass through any of
the points it joins up, but it needs to pass reasonably close.

A derived statistic representing the slope of the trend line is tested
to see if it fits the points better than one having zero slope. It may
well not pass the test with just a few points unless the trend is very
strong. As the number of points increases the presence of quite weak
trends can be detected, even when the individual points seem to be all
over the place.

Any number of references can be tracked down if you google for "linear
regression"

Yes, that is all fine and dandy, but what is the minimum number of
points that must be considered in order for a trend to be defined?
Roger seems to think anything less that 30 years is not a trend, and
therefore he summarily dismisses any such sub-30 year argument.

But why 30? Why not 300? Why not 3000?

At this point, Roger>s 30-years-defines-a-trend is arbitrary and
unjustified, but that could be said about a lot of what he posts. Some
reasoned justification would be nice, but I>ve asked before and got
nothing that would qualify as a substantive justification for 30-year
trends. Honestly, I don>t expect any deviation from that trend...
[/quote]
Without actually running the data through a stats program, I would
guess that the annual deviations in the global temperature record are
sufficiently large to not give a significant trend if one uses less
than around thirty years.

One also needs to be careful with very small samples. With these there
is a good chance of getting five or six or so that show a trend simply
because random elements just happen to stack up that way.

Peter Franks · Guest

Roger Coppock wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.
Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.

September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down

Why stop at 2005?
This data set goes back to 1880.
4 points can not establish a trend.
[/quote]
How many points /can/ establish a trend? Please provide supporting
references.

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]this point, Roger>s 30-years-defines-a-trend is arbitrary and
[/quote]
It>s not original with me.

1) Try almost any climatology text.

2) OR try the first chapter of the recent IPCC WG1
report.

"Climate is usually described in terms of the
mean and variability of temperature, precipitation
and wind over a period of time, ranging from
months to millions of years (the classical period
is 30 years)."

3) OR get it from the source the taught me,

"Bowdich -- The American Practical Navigator."

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 9, 1:48 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[ . . . ]
[quote]Without actually running the data through a stats program, I would
guess that the annual deviations in the global temperature record are
sufficiently large to not give a significant trend if one uses less
than around thirty years.
[/quote]
Yes, it>s about 25 to 30 years.

[quote]One also needs to be careful with very small samples. With these there
is a good chance of getting five or six or so that show a trend simply
because random elements just happen to stack up that way.
[/quote]
Yes.

Roger Coppock · Guest

On Oct 9, 3:12 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[quote]Therefore, what Roger MUST do is to provide a substantive source, or the
results of his own analysis that justifies a 30-year spectrum of data to
define a trend. As far as I>m aware, that justification has never been
provided.
[/quote]
Then, you haven>t looked.

Peter Franks · Guest

John M. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 8:04 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Oct 7, 9:43 pm, Joern Abatz <for-spam-o...@abatz.de> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:29:42 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 5th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA>s global land and
sea record.
Even heavily massaged GISS data finally suggest there>s cooling going on.
September
---- GISS
2005 +0.68 <== Peak
2006 +0.55 |
2007 +0.50 |
2008 +0.49 V Down
Why stop at 2005?
This data set goes back to 1880.
4 points can not establish a trend.
How many points /can/ establish a trend? Please provide supporting
references.

The number depends on the extent to which the trend is a good fit to
each of them. A regression line doesn>t have to pass through any of
the points it joins up, but it needs to pass reasonably close.

A derived statistic representing the slope of the trend line is tested
to see if it fits the points better than one having zero slope. It may
well not pass the test with just a few points unless the trend is very
strong. As the number of points increases the presence of quite weak
trends can be detected, even when the individual points seem to be all
over the place.

Any number of references can be tracked down if you google for "linear
regression"
[/quote]
Yes, that is all fine and dandy, but what is the minimum number of
points that must be considered in order for a trend to be defined?
Roger seems to think anything less that 30 years is not a trend, and
therefore he summarily dismisses any such sub-30 year argument.

But why 30? Why not 300? Why not 3000?

At this point, Roger>s 30-years-defines-a-trend is arbitrary and
unjustified, but that could be said about a lot of what he posts. Some
reasoned justification would be nice, but I>ve asked before and got
nothing that would qualify as a substantive justification for 30-year
trends. Honestly, I don>t expect any deviation from that trend...


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