CO2 RISE: A 6 DF CURVE FIT
From: Roger Coppock
Date last posted: Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:32 pm
Upated: 1/3/07

Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising exponentially.
Compare the trend of the points on the graph I have provided with
a straight line.

The period term in the sine function was given freedom to
check the accuracy of both the measurement and numeric
computation. The optimizer computed 0.999447 for this
value that is obviously the 1-year CO2 cycle. The
coefficients determined by the curve fit are very probably
as accurate, about three decimal places.
(And, I didn't confuse radians for degrees like the infamous
Canadian fossil fool! Please see:
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
These data may be found at:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/we...co2_mm_mlo.dat

The yearly means of the 578 points of monthly data follow:
YEAR CO2_ppmv"
1958 315.33 8 months of data"
1959 315.98"
1960 316.91"
1961 317.65"
1962 318.46"
1963 318.99"
1964 319.20 9 months of data"
1965 320.03"
1966 321.37"
1967 322.18"
1968 323.05"
1969 324.62"
1970 325.68"
1971 326.32"
1972 327.46"
1973 329.68"
1974 330.17"
1975 331.14 11 months of data"
1976 332.06"
1977 333.78"
1978 335.40"
1979 336.78"
1980 338.70"
1981 340.11"
1982 340.98 11 months of data"
1983 342.84"
1984 344.20 11 months of data"
1985 345.87"
1986 347.19"
1987 348.98"
1988 351.45"
1989 352.89"
1990 354.16"
1991 355.48"
1992 356.27"
1993 356.96"
1994 358.63"
1995 360.63"
1996 362.37"
1997 363.47"
1998 366.50"
1999 368.14"
2000 369.41"
2001 371.07"
2002 373.16"
2003 375.80"
2004 377.55"
2005 379.75"
2006 381.85"

But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?

Alarmist rhetoric. Even GW supporters don't claim this nonsense. The
IPCC says at the lower bound GW will cause a 2" (the size of your
turgid member) rise in mean sea levels over the next century--hardly
anything to worry about, butt-boi.

RL

RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?

raylopez99 wrote:
Alarmist rhetoric. Even GW supporters don't claim this nonsense. The
IPCC says at the lower bound GW will cause a 2" (the size of your
turgid member) rise in mean sea levels over the next century--hardly
anything to worry about, butt-boi.

Again the ignorant Exxon Corporate Troll shows you can't get good help
at minimum wage these days. The topic is TEMPERATURE, not sea rise. ICE
delays the temperature rise by melting -- it's not until all the sea
ice is gone that the water can get hot. It takes 79 calories to melt
one gram of ice. 79 calories otherwise raises the temperature of 79
grams of water one degree or raises one gram of water 79 degrees (C
that is, equal to 79% of the way to boiling).

So each gram of ice that melts is absorbing heat and protecting the
same gram of water from going to 174 degrees F. When the ice is all
gone, then the heating skyrockets -- 174 degrees per gram over whatever
heat is now melting the ice. Maybe you are out of touch with the real
world -- you can fit almost 5 grams in one teaspoon of water. so one
teaspone of ice protects against 395 calories of heating.

Global Warming is now attacking the ice, and when it gets finished with
that it will finish you.

Saddam's rope is currently unoccupied. It was made for people who do
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, like mass murder. What's your necksize, Lopez?

http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...rming-faq.html


RL

RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?

RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?
WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC RUBBISH YOU ALARMISTS WRITE . That 79 calories would
be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise . Read up on latent
heat and stop trolling with stupid logic.

AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?
WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC RUBBISH YOU ALARMISTS WRITE . That 79 calories would
be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise . Read up on latent
heat and stop trolling with stupid logic.

Oralator, you changed your login name, how clever, trying to get away
from the Seppo Renfors stench trail that you left.

"0 degrees change in temperature from solid to liquid phase change" is
what I said. Then you said the same thing using different words: "That
79 calories would be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise". How
very clever to say the same thing but accuse me of being wrong.

And after the ice is gone? What hapens to the 79 perpetually renewed
calories that global warming delived to melt the ice? What happen AFTER
there is no more "latent heat" buffer from temperature change? What
temperature does a gram of liquid water attain after absorbing the 79
calories that melted the ice, hmmmm? Would 174 degrees Farenheit, how
about 354 degrees Kelvin, or just plain +79 degrees Celsius, be about
the correct answer?

RayLopez wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
RayLopez69 wrote:
AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially over the
period is it?

All the ice hasn't melted yet, has it?

When the ice is all gone, then 79 calories means a 79 degrees C
temperature rise per gram of water instead of 0 degrees change in
temperature from solid to liquid phase change.

You want to swim in 79 degrees C waters, lobster-boy?
WHAT UNSCIENTIFIC RUBBISH YOU ALARMISTS WRITE . That 79 calories would
be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise . Read up on latent
heat and stop trolling with stupid logic.

Oralator, you changed your login name, how clever, trying to get away
from the Seppo Renfors stench trail that you left.

"0 degrees change in temperature from solid to liquid phase change" is
what I said. Then you said the same thing using different words: "That
79 calories would be absorbed by the ice with no temperature rise". How
very clever to say the same thing but accuse me of being wrong.

And after the ice is gone? What hapens to the 79 perpetually renewed
calories that global warming delived to melt the ice? What happen AFTER
there is no more "latent heat" buffer from temperature change? What
temperature does a gram of liquid water attain after absorbing the 79
calories that melted the ice, hmmmm? Would 174 degrees Farenheit, how
about 354 degrees Kelvin, or just plain +79 degrees Celsius, be about
the correct answer?
It will take several thousand years to melt the ice and several
thousand more years to raise the temperature .That is of course if the
ice is melting. At the moment the Antarctic ice is expanding faster
than Arctic ice is shrinking.

AGW is a scam wrote:
But Roger the Earth'sTemperature isn't rising exponentially
over the period is it?

Yes, the Earth's mean surface temperature shows
signs of rising exponentially. Compare the two
sums of residuals below. Both linear and
exponential are 2 degree of freedom curve fits.
Each has two terms that must be determined
by the curve fit, a constant term and one other
term. The exponential fit has slightly less total
residuals. This means that the exponential curve
fits the temperature data slightly better than a
straight line.


TEMP = 13.661798 + (0.004962 * (YEAR-1879))
[ . . . ]
The sum of the residuals is 11.920386

Exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.665012 * e^(.0003535 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 11.880982


The above data are from last years, 2005, yearly report
on NASA GISS's "GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature
Index" data file. The data file is found at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

I will post my new report this year, as soon as NASA
posts the data.

AGW is a scam wrote:
[ . . . ]
At the moment the Antarctic ice is expanding faster
than Arctic ice is shrinking.

Numbers please,