On Feb 29, 9:53 pm, "BN00Z" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

B00ZN wrote:
The New Consensus, Global Cooling
QUOTE: "The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C-a
value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded
over
the past 100 years."
NOPE, NOT AT ALL. THIS STATEMENT IS SIMPLY FALSE, A LIE.
January did not even go below the 1951-1980 data base norm.
(The entry for January, 2008, is positive.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

Au contraire Coppcock!
January 2008 is about 0.6 degrees C COOLER than January 2007.


Of course, 2007 was the warmest January on record.http://
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

So Jan. 2008, while cooler than Jan. 2007, is still above average.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of
warming


Lie. 2007 was the warmest year on record.

On Mar 3, 5:25*pm, Lloyd wrote:

Of course, 2007 was the warmest January on record.http://
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

So Jan. 2008, while cooler than Jan. 2007, is still above average.

indeed. if it "wiped out a century of warming", why is the lowest
point of the temp still +.036 above the baseline, which is the average
for 1960-1990? wouldn't it have to be below? i keep asking, funny how
nobody answers that. i guess whatever rightwingnutspew website
edjicated them regarding the facts forgot to tell them and their
brains is stuck for an answer.

On 4/03/08 16:45, in article
, "z"
wrote:

On Mar 3, 5:25*pm, Lloyd wrote:

Of course, 2007 was the warmest January on record.http://
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

So Jan. 2008, while cooler than Jan. 2007, is still above average.

indeed. if it "wiped out a century of warming", why is the lowest
point of the temp still +.036 above the baseline, which is the average
for 1960-1990? wouldn't it have to be below? i keep asking, funny how
nobody answers that. i guess whatever rightwingnutspew website
edjicated them regarding the facts forgot to tell them and their
brains is stuck for an answer.

For me, if one views the monthly range of temperatures
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
the fluctuations (call if noise) around the currently
computed 5 year moving average of 0.6°C makes a
monthly 1.1°C or 0°C anomaly statistically possible,
even probable. This is why one can't take a couple of
months readings as a new trend.

For instance, in that graph one might claim a new cooling
trend starting in 1998 for two years from an anomaly of
1°C (hotter than the 0.6 average) to nearly 0.1°C.

But the system turned around and went from 0.1 back up to 1.0
in early 2002, and then dropped again to 0.2 by mid 2004, then
turned around one again peaking in 2007. It is hard
to read any trend at all from that graph and some people
have commented that global warming is no longer occurring.
The same people jumped on the band wagon of saying it is
cooling based on a single measurement this winter!

What we do know, if we don't get too myoptic and misuse
curves like http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
is that view as a 5 yr moving average
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The upward trend is more obvious and the slope only amounts
to around 0.2°C per decade above the 1950-1980 average.
(3 decades produce a temperature rise of 0.6°C). So we
have to wait 10 years to see if anything is happening
with regard to cooling. It is not beyond the realm of
possiblity that we could run into a long term static
period as between 1950-1980 but if the CO2 hypothesis
is correct, it will not cool off significantly.

On Mar 4, 11:28*am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 4/03/08 16:45, in article
, "z"

wrote:
On Mar 3, 5:25*pm, Lloyd wrote:

Of course, 2007 was the warmest January on record.http://
lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

So Jan. 2008, while cooler than Jan. 2007, is still above average.

indeed. if it "wiped out a century of warming", why is the lowest
point of the temp still +.036 above the baseline, which is the average
for 1960-1990? wouldn't it have to be below? i keep asking, funny how
nobody answers that. i guess whatever rightwingnutspew website
edjicated them regarding the facts forgot to tell them and their
brains is stuck for an answer.

For me, if one views the monthly range of temperatureshttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
the fluctuations (call if noise) around the currently
computed 5 year moving average of 0.6°C makes a
monthly 1.1°C or 0°C anomaly statistically possible,
even probable. *This is why one can't take a couple of
months readings as a new trend.

For instance, in that graph one might claim a new cooling
trend starting in 1998 for two years from an anomaly of
1°C (hotter than the 0.6 average) to nearly 0.1°C.

But the system turned around and went from 0.1 back up to 1.0
in early 2002, and then dropped again to 0.2 by mid 2004, then
turned around one again peaking in 2007. It is hard
to read any trend at all from that graph and some people
have commented that global warming is no longer occurring.
The same people jumped on the band wagon of saying it is
cooling based on a single measurement this winter!

What we do know, if we don't get too myoptic and misuse
curves likehttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
is that view as a 5 yr moving averagehttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The upward trend is more obvious and the slope only amounts
to around 0.2°C per decade above the 1950-1980 average.
(3 decades produce a temperature rise of 0.6°C). So we
have to wait 10 years to see if anything is happening
with regard to cooling. It is not beyond the realm of
possiblity that we could run into a long term static
period as between 1950-1980 but if the CO2 hypothesis
is correct, it will not cool off significantly.

"Undoubtedly, the cooling trend through the year was due to the
strengthening La Nina, and the unusual coolness in January was aided
by a winter weather fluctuation.... The large short-term temperature
fluctuations have no bearing on the global warming matter or the
impacts of global warming ... A global warming much smaller than
weather fluctuations has the potential for dramatic effects, e.g., by
setting in motion future large sea level change, species extinction,
and various other impacts. ... Cold weather does raise an interesting
point, though. People who do not like cold weather, and might have
welcomed the idea that Minnesota may become more like Missouri or
Massachusetts like Virginia, must give up that notion"
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mail...oldWeather.pdf