Bush White House staffer Philip A. Cooney, a former oil
lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, altered
whole paragraphs of global warming scientific reports to
hide the truth about global warming. Meanwhile, global
mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

The 11-year solar cycle is near bottom and going down, yet
record highs of global mean temperature get set. Wouldn't
this indicate that that increased output from the Sun is
not a major cause of recent global warming? Sane people
say yes; let's see if the fossil fools on this forum have
anything on topic and rational to say about this.

These hemispherically averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/NH.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering the lands of the Northern
Hemisphere over the last 125 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean May temperature over the last 126 years is 14.000 C.
The Variance is 0.11701.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3421.

Rxy 0.741499 Rxy^2 0.54982
TEMP = 13.557343 + (0.006973 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 124 F = 151.445597
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999 (22 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of May in the year 2005,
is linearly projected to be 14.436,
yet it was 14.94. -- 1.5 SIGMA above the linear
projection!!! (Got that Charlew2?)
The sum of the residuals is 22.893597

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.564065 * e^(.0004979 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 22.849643

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2005 14.94 0.940 2.75 --
2003 14.91 0.910 2.66
1998 14.83 0.830 2.43
2001 14.74 0.740 2.16
2000 14.73 0.730 2.13
2004 14.73 0.730 2.13
2002 14.65 0.650 1.90
1988 14.59 0.590 1.72
1990 14.55 0.550 1.61
1994 14.52 0.520 1.52
1997 14.50 0.500 1.46
1991 14.45 0.450 1.32
1993 14.45 0.450 1.32
MEAN 14.000 0.000 0.00
1891 13.59 -0.410 -1.20
1904 13.57 -0.430 -1.26
1898 13.53 -0.470 -1.37
1903 13.53 -0.470 -1.37
1892 13.52 -0.480 -1.40
1902 13.52 -0.480 -1.40
1882 13.47 -0.530 -1.55
1918 13.46 -0.540 -1.58
1884 13.44 -0.560 -1.64
1893 13.41 -0.590 -1.73
1913 13.36 -0.640 -1.87
1907 13.26 -0.740 -2.16
1917 13.15 -0.850 -2.49
1885 13.10 -0.900 -2.63

The most recent 138 continuous months, or 11 years and 6 months,
on this NH.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1505 months of data on this data set:
-- 757 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 748 of them are below the norm.
This run of 138 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.

CORRECTION:
These data are now at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/NH.Ts.txt

Ghostbusting Temperatures

By Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC
August, 1st, 2004


A search in temperature databases show no warming during the 20th century -
and temperatures since the 1950s have been falling over most parts of the
U.S.A. So, where's the warming? At least not in the United States.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html

Your author tells one obvious lie after another. If he said
these things in court he would face a perjery charge.

Every subset of the latest, 2004, USHCN data, raw,
time of observation corrected, UHI corrected,
calc mean, daily high, and daily low shows warming.

For example, the calc mean "3A" data show:
~Cooler Stations = 230 Warmer Stations = 991
661 one degree grid squares have at least one observation.
0.13156 F/Decade is the probability weighted mean temperature change.
603 one degree grid squares have at least a total of .7 confidence.
0.14296 F/Decade is their probability weighted mean temperature change.

Check this for yourself at:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/


Satelite data show warming too. Check this for yourself at:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1

In article , "James"
wrote:

Ghostbusting Temperatures

By Eduardo Ferreyra
President of FAEC

Which is what?

August, 1st, 2004


A search in temperature databases show no warming during the 20th century

OK, he and you are lying right there. GISS curve anyone?

-
and temperatures since the 1950s have been falling over most parts of the
U.S.A. So, where's the warming? At least not in the United States.

A total lie. You, James, are a bald-faced liar.


http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html

Roger Coppock wrote:
Bush White House staffer Philip A. Cooney, a former oil
lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, altered
whole paragraphs of global warming scientific reports to
hide the truth about global warming. Meanwhile, global
mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

The 11-year solar cycle is near bottom and going down, yet
record highs of global mean temperature get set. Wouldn't
this indicate that that increased output from the Sun is
not a major cause of recent global warming? Sane people
say yes; let's see if the fossil fools on this forum have
anything on topic and rational to say about this.

Marvin did it.

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/.../23/index.html

nothing on topic or rational here

Roger Coppock wrote:
nothing on topic or rational here

Evidence of concurrent climate change on another planet in the solar
system is off topic and irrational in a discussion of global warming?

Yes.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in news:1118336121.774997.165800
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Yes.


Darn, and you were starting to sound intelligent for a minute there. I
happen to be in the "Global warming is real" camp, but doesn't evidence
that a concurrent warming trend on another planet in the same solar system
deserve consideration?