(This month's global mean surface temperature report is an
intelligence test. Let's see who is bright enough to spot the
difference between a single data point and a trend. To help,
the difference is clearly explained below.)

January was 40th warmest on the 129-year long NASA record.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

The month of July in the year 2007,
is linearly projected to be 14.397,
yet it was 14.57. - Above projected.

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a YEAR OR MORE. So far, this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.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 Mean January temperature over the last 129 years is 13.966 C.
The Variance is 0.09659.
The Standard Deviation, or SIGMA, is 0.3108.

Rxy 0.795081 Rxy^2 0.632154
TEMP = 13.534255 + (0.006636 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 218.252786
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999999999 (28 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of January in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.12. - 0.87 SIGMA BELOW projection.
The sum of the residuals is 19.696764

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.53837 * e^(.0004742 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 19.638499

Rank of the months of January
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 14.87 0.904 2.91
2002 14.71 0.744 2.40
2005 14.68 0.714 2.30
2003 14.64 0.674 2.17
2004 14.52 0.554 1.78
1998 14.52 0.554 1.78
1988 14.51 0.544 1.75
1981 14.47 0.504 1.62
2006 14.44 0.474 1.53
1983 14.44 0.474 1.53
1995 14.43 0.464 1.49
1958 14.41 0.444 1.43
1999 14.40 0.434 1.40
1992 14.39 0.424 1.37
2001 14.38 0.414 1.33
1944 14.37 0.404 1.30
1991 14.35 0.384 1.24
1990 14.32 0.354 1.14
1993 14.28 0.314 1.01
1997 14.27 0.304 0.98
1996 14.26 0.294 0.95
1973 14.26 0.294 0.95
1987 14.25 0.284 0.92
1994 14.24 0.274 0.88
1984 14.23 0.264 0.85
1942 14.22 0.254 0.82
1926 14.22 0.254 0.82
1980 14.21 0.244 0.79
1986 14.20 0.234 0.75
1955 14.19 0.224 0.72
1932 14.18 0.214 0.69
2000 14.17 0.204 0.66
1949 14.16 0.194 0.63
1945 14.16 0.194 0.63
1938 14.16 0.194 0.63
1985 14.15 0.184 0.59
1952 14.14 0.174 0.56
1948 14.14 0.174 0.56
1946 14.14 0.174 0.56
2008 14.12 0.154 0.50 - 2008 was 40th warmest.
MEAN 13.966 0.000 0.00
1968 13.79 -0.176 -0.56
1915 13.79 -0.176 -0.56
1897 13.79 -0.176 -0.56
1912 13.78 -0.186 -0.60
1899 13.78 -0.186 -0.60
1884 13.78 -0.186 -0.60
1880 13.77 -0.196 -0.63
1950 13.76 -0.206 -0.66
1924 13.76 -0.206 -0.66
1923 13.76 -0.206 -0.66
1903 13.76 -0.206 -0.66
1972 13.75 -0.216 -0.69
1935 13.75 -0.216 -0.69
1925 13.72 -0.246 -0.79
1910 13.72 -0.246 -0.79
1881 13.72 -0.246 -0.79
1906 13.70 -0.266 -0.85
1905 13.70 -0.266 -0.85
1929 13.69 -0.276 -0.89
1922 13.69 -0.276 -0.89
1951 13.68 -0.286 -0.92
1900 13.68 -0.286 -0.92
1888 13.62 -0.346 -1.11
1913 13.61 -0.356 -1.14
1892 13.61 -0.356 -1.14
1908 13.59 -0.376 -1.21
1883 13.59 -0.376 -1.21
1886 13.58 -0.386 -1.24
1917 13.57 -0.396 -1.27
1907 13.55 -0.416 -1.34
1891 13.55 -0.416 -1.34
1890 13.55 -0.416 -1.34
1918 13.52 -0.446 -1.43
1894 13.51 -0.456 -1.47
1904 13.49 -0.476 -1.53
1911 13.48 -0.486 -1.56
1895 13.46 -0.506 -1.63
1909 13.42 -0.546 -1.76
1885 13.40 -0.566 -1.82
1887 13.38 -0.586 -1.88
1893 13.13 -0.836 -2.69

The most recent 167 continuous months, or 13 years and 11 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1537 months of data on this data set:
-- 658 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 167 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.

On Feb 12, 1:15*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
(This month's global mean surface temperature report is an
intelligence test. *Let's see who is bright enough to spot the
difference between a single data point and a trend. *To help,
the difference is clearly explained below.)

I know,

a single data point is a point which does not support global warming,

a trend is a point which does support global warming.

On Feb 11, 4:25*pm, Mr Right wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:15*pm, Roger Coppock wrote: (This month's global mean surface temperature report is an
intelligence test. *Let's see who is bright enough to spot the
difference between a single data point and a trend. *To help,
the difference is clearly explained below.)

I know,

a single data point is a point which does not support global warming,

a trend is a point which does support global warming.

It seems you want attention Roger.

And what about February ?! Besides, only 40th warmest is a bit
disappointing for a world that is supposedly racing towards a global
warming oblivion. Isn't it? And that's probably with bogus numbers
as well!

On Feb 11, 5:18*pm, wrote:
It seems you want attention Roger.

And what about February ?! * *Besides, only 40th *warmest is a bit
disappointing *for *a world that is supposedly racing towards a global
warming oblivion. *Isn't it? *And that's probably with bogus numbers
as well!

wrote
And what about February ?! Besides, only 40th warmest is a bit
disappointing for a world that is supposedly racing towards a global
warming oblivion. Isn't it? And that's probably with bogus numbers
as well!

All those Bogus number from NASA - the AmeriKKKan agency that is most
deeply conspiring against the AmeiKKKan people to establish a One World
Communist Govenment on Earth.

Well at least according to Hurt beyone Repair, and his other Denialist
Brothers.

a single data point is a point which does not support global warming,

a trend is a point which does support global warming.

I thought it was the other way around?

"Mr Right" wrote
a trend is a point which does support global warming.

I see that Mr. Right is another Denialist KKKonservative who flunks the IQ
test.