CO2 RISE: A 6 Degree of Freedom CURVE FIT
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially. To see this compare the trend of the
red colored 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 0.999462 for this
value that is obviously the 1-year CO2 cycle. (See Al
Gore's movie or book for a good explanation of the 1-year
CO2 cycle.) The coefficients determined by the curve fit
are very probably as accurate, about three decimal places.
This is better than the statistical error.

(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.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat

The yearly means of the 581 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"
2007 383.76 3 months of data"

Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 RISE: A 6 Degree of Freedom CURVE FIT
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially.

No ****, Sherlock.

~0.4%/year is exponential.

On Apr 5, 10:37 pm, Al Bedo wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 RISE: A 6 Degree of Freedom CURVE FIT
Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg

Clearly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising
exponentially.

No ****, Sherlock.

~0.4%/year is exponential

No, ~0.4%/year is linear.
53.7 * EXP (0.017*(YEAR-1958)) is exponential.


Funny thing about exponentials,
look away and they run away.

On Apr 6, 5:05 am, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

Funny thing about exponentials,
look away and they run away.

Trees don't grow to the sky moron.

Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

If that wasn't the case, the earth would have turned to Venus ages
ago, when CO2 concentration was even higher.

RL

On Apr 6, 5:54 am, "raylopez99" wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:05 am, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

Funny thing about exponentials,
look away and they run away.

Trees don't grow to the sky moron.

Did I say that they did!?!?


Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

The data speak loudest
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg
and they shout exponential, without a whisper
of S-shaped, or logarithmic.


If that wasn't the case, the earth would have turned to Venus ages
ago, when CO2 concentration was even higher.


Ice core data show that this rise started about
two centuries ago. That is too short a time to
reach Venus like conditions.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:07:51 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 6, 5:54 am, "raylopez99" wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:05 am, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

Funny thing about exponentials,
look away and they run away.

Trees don't grow to the sky moron.

Did I say that they did!?!?


Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

The data speak loudest
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/CO2-6DegreesFreedom.jpg and they shout
exponential, without a whisper of S-shaped, or logarithmic.

Yet.

snip

Ice core data show that this rise started about two centuries ago. That
is too short a time to reach Venus like conditions.

The exponential rise started 200 years ago? From anthropogenic CO2?

Are you sure it wasn't thiotimoline?

Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

Rainfall distributions are exponential.

On Apr 9, 1:54 am, " wrote:
Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

Rainfall distributions are exponential.

I doubt it. They are Gaussian with fat tails, perhaps exponentially
fat tails, but still Gaussian.

RL

"raylopez99" wrote
Nothing in nature is exponential--it's S-shaped, or logarithmic (the
inverse of exponential), since feedback is involved.

I see, so the fact that we will have to limit out production of CO2 and
produce this S shape is proof that we need not limit our production of Co2.

Lopez Logic at work.

http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/000418.php



The *first* Wolfowitz/Riza scandal. Well, who knows, maybe not the
first. But at least prior to the one that's consuming so much
attention now. The New York Times (and its sister paper International
Herald Tribune) report on that niggling matter that Alex and one of
our correspondents have been complaining hasn't received enough
attention: how Riza, then a regular WB employee, ended up working on a
non-WB contract in Iraq in April/May 2003 (shortly after the invasion)
without the Bank's knowledge. Turns out the Pentagon -- where
Wolfowitz was #2 at the time -- ordered its contractor to hire her.

The article includes an interview with Jean-Louis Sarbib, who was at
the time the Bank's Vice President for the region that includes Iraq,
and was Shaha Riza's direct supervisor. He admits he should have known
about the arrangement, but was never told. And he says that there were
a lot of questions about why Riza gave a presentation to the World
Bank board when she came back from Iraq, offering a relatively
optimistic view of the country's future.

"It was not clear why the Pentagon specifically asked for Riza to
travel to Iraq. At the time, however, the World Bank did not have a
relationship with Iraq. Normal bank rules do not allow the bank to
provide economic assistance to an area under military occupation,"
report Steven Weisman and David Sanger. "Riza's trip raised concerns
among some bank officials, who said they did not know under whose
auspices she had traveled to Iraq at a time when it was against bank
policy for its officials to go there."

Incidentally, the man in charge of the office that was said to have
insisted on Riza's hire, Under Secretary for Defense in charge of
policy, Douglas Feith (who has since left the Dept of Defense), is a
particularly notorious character in the effort to justify the U.S.
invasion of Iraq. One of the main figures in the Wolfowitz cabal at
Defense, he was put in charge of creating a secret, wholly separate
and new intelligence agency, to counter the inconvenient reports put
out by what Cheney and Wolfowitz felt were the amateurs at the CIA and
Defense Intelligence Agency.

Soren Ambrose ~ April 17, 2007