On Mar 15, 12:19*pm, "Stan Kellett"
wrote:
I have just looked at both these graphs and they are NOT forecasts. The
lower rate increase in the rate of warming is averaged over 150 years the
higher increasing rate is over the last 50 years. As these are based on
actual values then this is worrying as it shows that not only is the
acceleration in rate of warming increasing but this acceleration is also
increasing.

The graphs themselves are not forcasts. They show what has alredy
happen. But attempting to predict what is coming based on what has
happen is a forcast and that is why the graphs were presented.

Yes, the graphs show averages over different time periods. This one

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

shows the last 55 years while this one

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

shows the last 158. If you look at the same years on both you will
notice that the first one starts at the bottom of a wave and uses the
slope of the wave to make its prediction, despite the fact that the
second graph tells us that slope will not continue. Notice how the
first graph ends with an upward spike at 2007, leading you to believe
it will continue in that direction, while the second graph shows that
was a fluke with a much lower point in 2008.

Now let's look at more data from the same sources. This graph

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ure_Record.png

uses data from the Hadley Centre, same as this one

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/hadSlope1850-2008.jpg

Note that the first shows actual temperture while the second shows
rate of change. If you look at the anual average temp in the first
graph you can see that it peaked in 1998 and was lower after that.
Yet the second graph using data from the same source shows the temp
not only rising during those years but rising at an accelerating rate!

Nasa provided the data for both of these graphs.

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ure_Record.png

Notice in the second graph there are ups and downs but the average
temp stays near constant from 1947 to 1977. Now look at the first
graph and notice an accelerating rise is shown for the same years. We
aren't talking about some short term fluke here. That's a 30 year
period, about half of the total time in the first graph. Kinda makes
you wonder how they got such seemingly conflicting results using the
same data doesn't it?

Also keep in mind that we know the temp was below normal back in 1850,
so it would be expected that the average temp would have increased
since then. And yes, according to this

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ure_Record.png

the average temp did rise, by less than one degree in 120 years.

Bruce

If I have misread the graphs then don't flame me but please explain how my
analysis of the two graphs is incorrect.

thanks Stan