Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 14, 2:37 pm, "BobLl" wrote:
marcodbeast wrote:
BobLl wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
11th Warmest April on NASA's 130-year Data Set

We supposedly have a crisis of accelerating warming yet April 2009
has fallen out of the top ten in warmth. I'm amazed you think this
tidbit supports your case.

We are accelerating, read my post.




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

I guess you haven't noticed that the fossil fuel industry has gone
quiet on opposing AGW - for good reason. They've realized that
these crazy cap and trade schemes will artificially raise prices -
very good for the oil companies. They're busy planning how to
capitalize on AGW.
Why do you post a link to a 2008 story citing 2007 data. The
cooling since 2002 is obvious in this data but we've had another
16 months of cooling since then.

Why do denialists pretend they don't know about temporary cycles
when it suits them, and blame everything on them the rest of the
time? lol
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-231

I'm consistent. I've always believed that natural changes and
ocillations are responsible - both for the warming in the 80s and
90s and the cooling in the 00s. From your own link:

"During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the
oscillation's warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions
are reversed."

The entire AGW crisis phenomenon is built on the warming seen during
the 80s and 90s. Now you apparently agree that this was just a
climate
oscillation - not due to CO2. You must then also agree that AGW is
just a big mistake.

Hay Bob! Do you know how to read a graph?

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

It's hard to know where to start with this. First of all since you claim
to be such a stickler for statistics I'd be curious what the R^2 statistic
is for the linear fit you used to get 1.1 deg / Century^2 - since that's
apparently the whole point of the chart. Without doing the math I can tell
you it's very bad indeed.


The trends you spoke of, the 1980's and 1990's,
they are only in your imagination. Anyone speaking
of global climate trends shorter than three decades
is a fool who needs an introductory course in
statistics.

Oh please. You're the one who cited a study with just 2 years worth of
Greenland Ice Sheet data as positive evidence of an ice loss trend - and
thus evidence of global warming.

I was just quoting the study you cited. Sorry you don't like that part of
it.