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.

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 May in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.309,
yet it was 14.36. - above trend line

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 last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean May temperature over the last 129 years is 13.962 C.
The Variance is 0.06269.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2504.

Rxy 0.806223 Rxy^2 0.649996
TEMP = 13.609654 + (0.005421 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 235.853086
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of May in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.309,
yet it was 14.36. - above trend line
The sum of the residuals is 15.342221

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.613209 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 15.297205

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.61 0.648 2.59
2007 14.56 0.598 2.39
2002 14.56 0.598 2.39
2005 14.55 0.588 2.35
2003 14.51 0.548 2.19
2001 14.51 0.548 2.19
2006 14.42 0.458 1.83
2004 14.37 0.408 1.63
1990 14.37 0.408 1.63
1988 14.37 0.408 1.63
2008 14.36 0.398 1.59 --
1997 14.32 0.358 1.43
1991 14.30 0.338 1.35
MEAN 13.962 0.000 0.00
1894 13.67 -0.292 -1.17
1910 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1903 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1898 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1893 13.64 -0.322 -1.29
1885 13.64 -0.322 -1.29
1909 13.61 -0.352 -1.41
1904 13.61 -0.352 -1.41
1913 13.60 -0.362 -1.45
1911 13.60 -0.362 -1.45
1918 13.56 -0.402 -1.61
1890 13.56 -0.402 -1.61
1907 13.51 -0.452 -1.81
1917 13.46 -0.502 -2.00

The most recent 171 continuous months, or 14 years and 3 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1541 months of data on this data set:
-- 662 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
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.

..

A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
Roger admit it, the Earth is cooling and this statement is wrong

"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.








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 May in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.309,
yet it was 14.36. - above trend line

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 last 128 yearly means of these data are graphed at:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg

The Mean May temperature over the last 129 years is 13.962 C.
The Variance is 0.06269.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2504.

Rxy 0.806223 Rxy^2 0.649996
TEMP = 13.609654 + (0.005421 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 235.853086
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of May in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.309,
yet it was 14.36. - above trend line
The sum of the residuals is 15.342221

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.613209 * e^(.0003868 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 15.297205

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.61 0.648 2.59
2007 14.56 0.598 2.39
2002 14.56 0.598 2.39
2005 14.55 0.588 2.35
2003 14.51 0.548 2.19
2001 14.51 0.548 2.19
2006 14.42 0.458 1.83
2004 14.37 0.408 1.63
1990 14.37 0.408 1.63
1988 14.37 0.408 1.63
2008 14.36 0.398 1.59 --
1997 14.32 0.358 1.43
1991 14.30 0.338 1.35
MEAN 13.962 0.000 0.00
1894 13.67 -0.292 -1.17
1910 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1903 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1898 13.66 -0.302 -1.21
1893 13.64 -0.322 -1.29
1885 13.64 -0.322 -1.29
1909 13.61 -0.352 -1.41
1904 13.61 -0.352 -1.41
1913 13.60 -0.362 -1.45
1911 13.60 -0.362 -1.45
1918 13.56 -0.402 -1.61
1890 13.56 -0.402 -1.61
1907 13.51 -0.452 -1.81
1917 13.46 -0.502 -2.00

The most recent 171 continuous months, or 14 years and 3 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1541 months of data on this data set:
-- 662 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
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.

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.

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 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."

"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

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.


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

Computer models are worthless.


However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020,

Absurd. They have no scientific basis for such a prediction.

they
say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it
may help societies plan better for the future.

Bull****. All it is going to do is help insure they get grant
funding.


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.

Oh, this is "the" key. We get new keys every week.


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

Imagine if we could travel faster than light.


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."

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/

chemist wrote:
.

A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
Roger admit it, the Earth is cooling and this statement is wrong

Bull**** Bolger already knows the current 'cooling' is temporary - he's
simply lying.

On Jun 9, 11:19*am, chemist wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.
Roger admit it, the Earth is cooling and this statement is wrong

Please be a scientist and show data to support that
the Earth's surface is cooling. Remember, it takes
about three decades to establish a climate trend.