tvor wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
May was 11th warmest on the 129-year NASA global data record.

Even though May of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.



Arctic temps accounts for the majority of the increase of the
'average' global temperature. Dirty snow causes up to 94% of the
observed arctic temperature changes. Soot is the problem, not CO2.

The usual denialist lies.

tvor wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
tvor wrote:

Arctic temps accounts for the majority of the increase of the
'average' global temperature. Dirty snow causes up to 94% of the
observed arctic temperature changes. Soot is the problem, not CO2.

Cuz you sez so, right?

That should be good enough for any crackpot or Gomer.


www.google.com

Sorry, that source disproves your claim.

chemist wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

This run of 171 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.

He is wrong .he Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a
decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists
have predicted.

A temporary cooling phase, which will be over in a few years.



A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the
journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they
say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it
may help societies plan better for the future.

See how modelled temperatures may develop

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean
temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which
is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the
tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle
appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.


Imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next 10
years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation
Professor Michael Schlesinger

It may partly explain why temperatures rose in the early years of the
last century before beginning to cool in the 1940s.

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see
changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given
the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),"
said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at
Kiel University.

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for
about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and
temperatures rise.

"In the long term, radiative forcing (the Earth's energy balance)
dominates. But it's important for policymakers to realise the
pattern," he told BBC News.

Deep patterns

Modelling of climatic events in the oceans is difficult, simply
because there is relatively little data on some of the key processes,
such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - sometimes
erroneously known as the Gulf Stream - which carries heat northwards
in the Atlantic.

Only within the last few years have researchers begun systematically
deploying mobile floats and tethered buoys that will, in time, tell us
how this circulation is changing.


Atlantic circulation

Enlarge Image

As a substitute for direct measurements of the MOC, the Kiel team used
data going back 50 years from the Labrador Sea, where warm water gives
up its heat to the atmosphere and sinks, before returning southward
lower in the ocean.

Combining this ocean data with established models of global warming,
they were able to generate a stream of model results that mimicked
well temperatures observed in the recent past over the north Atlantic,
western Europe and North America.

Looking forward, the model projects a weakening of the MOC and a
resulting cooling of north Atlantic waters, which will act to keep
temperatures in check around the world, much as the warming and
cooling associated with El Nino and La Nina in the Pacific bring
global consequences.

"We have to take into account that there are uncertainties in our
model; but it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a
continued rise," said Dr Keenlyside.

'No distraction'

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists,
though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea
that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a
permanent phenomenon.

"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to
year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley
Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.

"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural
variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we
don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in
the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

Buoys. Image: Nerc
Ocean buoys should produce more data about the Atlantic oscillation

Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and
once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may
change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global
climate.

As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the
northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises
that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication
that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other
institutions are wrong.

Michael Schlesinger, the US scientist who characterised the AMO in
1994, described the new model as "very exciting".

"No doubt we need to have more data from the deep ocean, and we don't
have that at present," the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
researcher told BBC News.

"But imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next
10 years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation - the economic
impacts of that would be significant."

Claudius Denk wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:36 am, chemist wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
This run of 171 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.

He is wrong .he Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a
decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists
have predicted.

They may be scientists. And they may have put forth a prediction.
But that doesn't mean there is any scientific validity to the
prediction. Any scientists that pretends to predict anything more
than the next couple of days weather is a liar.

k00k-a-d00dle-d0000!

tvor wrote:
"kT" wrote in message
...
tvor wrote:

Arctic temps accounts for the majority of the increase of the 'average'
global temperature. Dirty snow causes up to 94% of the observed arctic
temperature changes. Soot is the problem, not CO2.
Cuz you sez so, right?

That should be good enough for any crackpot or Gomer.


www.google.com

You are the one making the claim, not me.

Besides, who needs google when we have usenets crackpots like you to
tell us the undocumented truth. Anyways, somebody else already put your
ass back into the noise where it belongs :

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
May was 11th warmest on the 129-year NASA global data record.

Even though May of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.


That's only your analysis. What is NASA's analysis?

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 11:21 am, "tvor" wrote:
[ . . . ]
Arctic temps accounts for the majority of the increase of the 'average'
global temperature. Dirty snow causes up to 94% of the observed arctic
temperature changes. Soot is the problem, not CO2.

What you describe is called the BC, (for Black Carbon,) effect
As you can see from these data, greenhouse gases dominate
this small effect.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/



I don't know Roj, this guy has a different opinion:

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1621

In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty
snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the
observed change, the scientists determined.

"Roger poppycock" wrote in message
...
NASA Says Climate Shifting to Cooler Temperatures


Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:33 AM

By: Phil Brennan







The allegedly warming earth is in for about 30 years of cooling
according to NASA, one of the leading global warming theory advocates.

NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will
likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd,
writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also quick
to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the issue of
manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently will be going
on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a decade and a half
long cold spell.

"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific
Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening,
the Pacific decadal Oscillation - a larger-scale, Slower-cycling ocean
pattern - had shifted to its cool phase."

Notes Shepherd "This shift in the PDO, which could last for 20 or 30
years, can have significant implications for global climate, affecting
Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the
Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems and global land
temperature patterns."

And the greatest impact here in the states, he adds, will likely be on
west Coast residents, particularly growers.

Warns meteorologist Anthony Watts: "Look out California agriculture.
The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing
season and more threats of frost, among other things."

Watts cites two recent reports of frost-induced crop devastation - an
apple orchard in Paradise and wine grapes in Nevada County. He also offers a
brief history of last century's PDO phase shifts, and warns that
California's agriculture, which experienced "unprecedented growth" during
the past warm phase, may now be in serious trouble as things cool down:

In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase, in 1946, PDO switched to a cool
phase, and in 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase again.

Notes Shepherd "Recently lower global temps, likely caused by the late
start of Solar Cycle 24, already have some greenhouse gassers nervous -
particularly amid speculation of a possible impending 'little ice age.'

"But surely," he says, "a 30 year protracted naturally-explainable
cooling period concurrent with rising atmospheric CO2 levels would forever
cool the public's receptiveness to global warming alarmism. No problem - our
ever panicking friends at NASA have that angle covered, too."

Says NASA: "Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El
Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation.
According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, 'These
natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human
activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.'"

In other words, CO2 is secretly warming the planet. Or not.

On Jun 9, 12:40*pm, "tvor" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Jun 9, 11:21 am, "tvor" wrote:
[ . . . ]

Arctic temps accounts for the majority of the increase of the 'average'
global temperature. Dirty snow causes up to 94% of the observed arctic
temperature changes. Soot is the problem, not CO2.

What you describe is called the BC, (for Black Carbon,) effect
As you can see from these data, greenhouse gases dominate
this small effect.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

I don't know Roj, this guy has a different opinion:

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1621

In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty
snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the
observed change, the scientists determined.

Read your own article, then look at my data, tvor!
Your article and my data agree.

Chimp Ears Obama Commie wrote:

NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will
likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd,
writing in the April 30 American Thinker.

Hahah hahah ahahahahaha ha haha stop ... please ... I'm getting dumber.