On Land, May was Third Warmest on the 130-Year NASA Record.

In the real world,
outside the fossil fuel industry's spin and lies,
global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 130 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

The Mean May temperature over the last 130 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.09758.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3124.

Rxy 0.732772 Rxy^2 0.536954
TEMP = 13.597399 + (0.0061 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 148.430482
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999 (22 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of May in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.75. -- The rise accelerates
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.556386

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.603368 * e^(.0004351 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.502246

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.78 0.783 2.51
2007 14.76 0.763 2.44
2009 14.75 0.753 2.41 --
2003 14.73 0.733 2.35
2002 14.71 0.713 2.28
2005 14.65 0.653 2.09
2001 14.59 0.593 1.90
1988 14.54 0.543 1.74
2008 14.46 0.463 1.48
1990 14.46 0.463 1.48
1983 14.46 0.463 1.48
1984 14.44 0.443 1.42
1980 14.43 0.433 1.39
2004 14.41 0.413 1.32
MEAN 13.997 0.000 0.00
1964 13.61 -0.387 -1.24
1909 13.59 -0.407 -1.30
1887 13.57 -0.427 -1.37
1907 13.55 -0.447 -1.43
1893 13.54 -0.457 -1.46
1899 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1896 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1892 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1894 13.51 -0.487 -1.56
1898 13.49 -0.507 -1.62
1904 13.45 -0.547 -1.75
1913 13.42 -0.577 -1.85
1918 13.41 -0.587 -1.88
1917 13.32 -0.677 -2.17
1884 13.28 -0.717 -2.30

The most recent 198 continuous months, or 16 years and 6 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1553 months of data on this data set:
-- 769 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 784 of them are below the norm.
This run of 198 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.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

On Land, May was Third Warmest on the 130-Year NASA Record.

Really no surprise.

See:
http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and used)


In the real world,

... which is not Roger's world,

global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

... parallel to Roger's idiocy, that May 2009 stands for global mean
surface temperatures.

Global temperatures continue to decline, despite of a short period of
increased temperature, positive SOI and positive PDO between 2001 and
2007. They are not very impressed by Roger's 600 lines BASIC program,
which should emulate all global datacenters.

All satellites and almost all ground based mearuring stations show
declining temperatures.


Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

"Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer ..."

Bull****.
Average global temperature is 0.575 °C above baseline and declining.
And who feels impressed by old graphs like in Roger's link?
Guess why they draw a 10-years trend from left to right and not other
way round from actual date.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:

Yes, we know. Remember?

http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(So far for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and
used)


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 130 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

Maybe, but surely after they have been fals... errhh... adapted for
convenience of policy.
Error correcting faked data is simply wackiness by nutcase J. Hansen.


The Mean May temperature over the last 130 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.09758.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3124.

Rxy 0.732772 Rxy^2 0.536954

Oh, tell us, does it have to mean something, if your idiotic R^2
declined since your same posting for May 2008?

Rxy 0.736131 Rxy^2 0.541889

(Message-ID:
)


More bull**** follows:

TEMP = 13.597399 + (0.0061 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 148.430482
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999 (22 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of May in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.75. -- The rise accelerates
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.556386

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.603368 * e^(.0004351 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.502246

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.78 0.783 2.51
2007 14.76 0.763 2.44
2009 14.75 0.753 2.41 --
2003 14.73 0.733 2.35
2002 14.71 0.713 2.28
2005 14.65 0.653 2.09
2001 14.59 0.593 1.90
1988 14.54 0.543 1.74
2008 14.46 0.463 1.48
1990 14.46 0.463 1.48
1983 14.46 0.463 1.48
1984 14.44 0.443 1.42
1980 14.43 0.433 1.39
2004 14.41 0.413 1.32
MEAN 13.997 0.000 0.00
1964 13.61 -0.387 -1.24
1909 13.59 -0.407 -1.30
1887 13.57 -0.427 -1.37
1907 13.55 -0.447 -1.43
1893 13.54 -0.457 -1.46
1899 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1896 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1892 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1894 13.51 -0.487 -1.56
1898 13.49 -0.507 -1.62
1904 13.45 -0.547 -1.75
1913 13.42 -0.577 -1.85
1918 13.41 -0.587 -1.88
1917 13.32 -0.677 -2.17
1884 13.28 -0.717 -2.30

The most recent 198 continuous months, or 16 years and 6 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1553 months of data on this data set:
-- 769 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 784 of them are below the norm.
This run of 198 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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...

Thank you for your uneducated opinion backed up by nothing..

WOW! Such massive ignorance!
You've made so many mistakes here.
Peter, seriously now. Take a
basic statistics course. Try to
learn something, anything.

The deniers invent dark conspiracies
to explain why the mainstream press
ignores them. In reality, it is displays
of total ignorance like this post from
Peter that get them filed under KOOK!


On Jun 20, 3:20*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Land, May was Third Warmest on the 130-Year NASA Record.

Really no surprise.

See:http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and used)

In the real world,

... which is not Roger's world,

global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

... parallel to Roger's idiocy, that May 2009 stands for global mean surface
temperatures.

Global temperatures continue to decline, despite of a short period of
increased temperature, positive SOI and positive PDO between 2001 and 2007.
They are not very impressed by Roger's 600 lines BASIC program, which should
emulate all global datacenters.

All satellites and almost all ground based mearuring stations show declining
temperatures.

Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

"Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer ..."

Bull****.
Average global temperature is 0.575 °C above baseline and declining.
And who feels impressed by old graphs like in Roger's link?
Guess why they draw a 10-years trend from left to right and not other way
round from actual date.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:

Yes, we know. Remember?

http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(So far for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and used)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 130 years. *Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

Maybe, but surely after they have been fals... errhh... adapted for
convenience of policy.
Error correcting faked data is simply wackiness by nutcase J. Hansen.

The Mean May temperature over the last 130 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.09758.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3124.

Rxy 0.732772 * Rxy^2 0.536954

Oh, tell us, does it have to mean something, if your idiotic R^2 declined
since your same posting for May 2008?

| Rxy 0.736131 * Rxy^2 0.541889

| (Message-ID: )

More bull**** follows:



TEMP = 13.597399 + (0.0061 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 * * * * F = 148.430482
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999 (22 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of May in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.75. *-- The rise accelerates
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.556386

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.603368 * e^(.0004351 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.502246

* *Rank of the months of May
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
1998 * 14.78 * * 0.783 * * 2.51
2007 * 14.76 * * 0.763 * * 2.44
2009 * 14.75 * * 0.753 * * 2.41 --
2003 * 14.73 * * 0.733 * * 2.35
2002 * 14.71 * * 0.713 * * 2.28
2005 * 14.65 * * 0.653 * * 2.09
2001 * 14.59 * * 0.593 * * 1.90
1988 * 14.54 * * 0.543 * * 1.74
2008 * 14.46 * * 0.463 * * 1.48
1990 * 14.46 * * 0.463 * * 1.48
1983 * 14.46 * * 0.463 * * 1.48
1984 * 14.44 * * 0.443 * * 1.42
1980 * 14.43 * * 0.433 * * 1.39
2004 * 14.41 * * 0.413 * * 1.32
MEAN * 13.997 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1964 * 13.61 * *-0.387 * *-1.24
1909 * 13.59 * *-0.407 * *-1.30
1887 * 13.57 * *-0.427 * *-1.37
1907 * 13.55 * *-0.447 * *-1.43
1893 * 13.54 * *-0.457 * *-1.46
1899 * 13.52 * *-0.477 * *-1.53
1896 * 13.52 * *-0.477 * *-1.53
1892 * 13.52 * *-0.477 * *-1.53
1894 * 13.51 * *-0.487 * *-1.56
1898 * 13.49 * *-0.507 * *-1.62
1904 * 13.45 * *-0.547 * *-1.75
1913 * 13.42 * *-0.577 * *-1.85
1918 * 13.41 * *-0.587 * *-1.88
1917 * 13.32 * *-0.677 * *-2.17
1884 * 13.28 * *-0.717 * *-2.30

The most recent 198 continuous months, or 16 years and 6 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1553 months of data on this data set:
* -- 769 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 784 of them are below the norm.
This run of 198 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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...

On Jun 21, 6:21*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
WOW! *Such massive ignorance!

•• Idiot top posters like Roger Kookpock
deserve no respect and get even less.

You've made so many mistakes here.
Peter, seriously now. *Take a
basic statistics course. *Try to
learn something, anything.

•• ROTFLMAO
Roger, the k00k is desperate for someone to
take his bull**** seriously.

The deniers invent dark conspiracies
to explain why the mainstream press
ignores them.

••*Now Roger K00k is inventing "dark
conspiracies" while he displays his total
ignorance. He usually spends his time posting
and reposting Astronomer Hansen's bull**** stats.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

WOW! Such massive ignorance!
You've made so many mistakes here.
Peter, seriously now. Take a
basic statistics course. Try to
learn something, anything.

The deniers invent dark conspiracies
to explain why the mainstream press
ignores them.


Gee, see a doctor, or write science fiction, unless
you can name one person who even thinks about the
mainstream press.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Ouroboros Rex" wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

On Land, May was Third Warmest on the 130-Year NASA Record.

Really no surprise.

See:
http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and used)


In the real world,

... which is not Roger's world,

global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.

... parallel to Roger's idiocy, that May 2009 stands for global mean
surface temperatures.

Global temperatures continue to decline, despite of a short period
of increased temperature, positive SOI and positive PDO between
2001 and 2007. They are not very impressed by Roger's 600 lines
BASIC program, which should emulate all global datacenters.

All satellites and almost all ground based mearuring stations show
declining temperatures.


Please see:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html

"Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer ..."

Bull****.
Average global temperature is 0.575 °C above baseline and declining.
And who feels impressed by old graphs like in Roger's link?
Guess why they draw a 10-years trend from left to right and not
other way round from actual date.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:

Yes, we know. Remember?

http://www.umweltluege.de/sceptics/giss_lie

Also see:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3428
(especially comment #43)

http://www.surfacestations.org
(So far for the crude methods how inaccurate data is collected and
used)


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of stations covering all the lands of the
Earth over the last 130 years. Yes, the data are corrected
for the urban heat island effect.

Maybe, but surely after they have been fals... errhh... adapted for
convenience of policy.
Error correcting faked data is simply wackiness by nutcase J.
Hansen.


The Mean May temperature over the last 130 years is 13.997 C.
The Variance is 0.09758.
The Standard Deviation is 0.3124.

Rxy 0.732772 Rxy^2 0.536954

Oh, tell us, does it have to mean something, if your idiotic R^2
declined since your same posting for May 2008?

Rxy 0.736131 Rxy^2 0.541889

(Message-ID:
)


More bull**** follows:

TEMP = 13.597399 + (0.0061 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 128 F = 148.430482
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.9999999999999999999999 (22 nines), which is darn close to 100%!

The month of May in the year 2009,
is linearly projected to be 14.390,
yet it was 14.75. -- The rise accelerates
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.556386

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.603368 * e^(.0004351 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the absolute errors is 21.502246

Rank of the months of May
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
1998 14.78 0.783 2.51
2007 14.76 0.763 2.44
2009 14.75 0.753 2.41 --
2003 14.73 0.733 2.35
2002 14.71 0.713 2.28
2005 14.65 0.653 2.09
2001 14.59 0.593 1.90
1988 14.54 0.543 1.74
2008 14.46 0.463 1.48
1990 14.46 0.463 1.48
1983 14.46 0.463 1.48
1984 14.44 0.443 1.42
1980 14.43 0.433 1.39
2004 14.41 0.413 1.32
MEAN 13.997 0.000 0.00
1964 13.61 -0.387 -1.24
1909 13.59 -0.407 -1.30
1887 13.57 -0.427 -1.37
1907 13.55 -0.447 -1.43
1893 13.54 -0.457 -1.46
1899 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1896 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1892 13.52 -0.477 -1.53
1894 13.51 -0.487 -1.56
1898 13.49 -0.507 -1.62
1904 13.45 -0.547 -1.75
1913 13.42 -0.577 -1.85
1918 13.41 -0.587 -1.88
1917 13.32 -0.677 -2.17
1884 13.28 -0.717 -2.30

The most recent 198 continuous months, or 16 years and 6 months,
on this GLB.Ts.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1553 months of data on this data set:
-- 769 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 784 of them are below the norm.
This run of 198 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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA...

Thank you for your uneducated opinion backed up by nothing..

If you moron claim this as uneducated opinion, you should know better.
You don't.
If you know better, you should be able to provide disproof.
You can't.
If you have a disproof, then post it.
You won't.

Résumé: You don't, you can't, you won't.

So STFU, naughty troll.

Thanks for yet another ridiculous, uneducated opinion.

wrote:
On Jun 21, 6:21 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
WOW! Such massive ignorance!

•• Idiot top posters like Roger Kookpock
deserve no respect and get even less.

You've made so many mistakes here.
Peter, seriously now. Take a
basic statistics course. Try to
learn something, anything.

•• ROTFLMAO
Roger, the k00k is desperate for someone to
take his bull**** seriously.

The deniers invent dark conspiracies
to explain why the mainstream press
ignores them.

•• Now Roger K00k is inventing "dark
conspiracies" while he displays his total
ignorance. He usually spends his time posting
and reposting Astronomer Hansen's bull**** stats.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

As always, lenny post = lies.

What A. Fool wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock
wrote:

WOW! Such massive ignorance!
You've made so many mistakes here.
Peter, seriously now. Take a
basic statistics course. Try to
learn something, anything.

The deniers invent dark conspiracies
to explain why the mainstream press
ignores them.


Gee, see a doctor, or write science fiction, unless
you can name one person who even thinks about the
mainstream press.

I name you.

Odorous "Ouroboros Rex" who Reeks
more and more like "Scott Nudds" aka "V-for-Vendicar"
sang his Green L'Internationale while he wrote... nothing of
value nor interest due to his own, all consuming proclivities:
http://tinyurl.com/l65gsu -- &-- http://tinyurl.com/lb8wjv

Odorous "Ouroboros Rex" who Reeks
more and more like "Scott Nudds" aka "V-for-Vendicar"
sang his Green L'Internationale while he wrote... nothing of
value nor interest due to his own, all consuming proclivities:
http://tinyurl.com/l65gsu -- &-- http://tinyurl.com/lb8wjv