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.

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

"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 11:00 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:41 am, "Stan Kellett"
wrote:

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are using
the
worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago is now
the
most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over last couple
of
years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in an inactive
phase and
some natural Oceanographic effects countering the AGW effect are
happening.
Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

Stan: when you filter out the natural noise,
the rise in the global mean surface temperature
is already accelerating, as it has for some time now.
Please see:

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

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

I see that one predicts about five times the acceleration of the
other. Great accuracy.......NOT

On Mar 15, 1:21 am, "James" wrote:
"Stan Kellett" wrote in message

...

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are using
the worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago is now
the most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over last
couple of years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in an
inactive phase and some natural Oceanographic effects countering the
AGW effect are happening. Once these phases go into a natural warming
then we will start seeing the AGW accelerating.

Stan

"James" wrote in message
.. .

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be scared
enough. This should be good. Why didn't they get Spielberg?

================================================== ======

Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

What does this mean?

I think he's referring to the notion that once ENSO moves into the
next phase and the next cycle of solar activity starts, the CO2 that's
been continually accruing in the atmosphere will express itself in a
kind of 1998 hiccup - but hotter.

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

"JohnM" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 1:21 am, "James" wrote:
"Stan Kellett" wrote in message

...

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are
using
the worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago is
now
the most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over last
couple of years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in an
inactive phase and some natural Oceanographic effects countering
the
AGW effect are happening. Once these phases go into a natural
warming
then we will start seeing the AGW accelerating.

Stan

"James" wrote in message
.. .

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be
scared
enough. This should be good. Why didn't they get Spielberg?

================================================== ======

Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start
seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

What does this mean?

I think he's referring to the notion that once ENSO moves into the
next phase and the next cycle of solar activity starts, the CO2 that's
been continually accruing in the atmosphere will express itself in a
kind of 1998 hiccup - but hotter.

So when the sun warms things up and El Nino returns, it's global warming
because of co2 again. Give us a break.

On Mar 16, 2:55 am, "James" wrote:
"JohnM" wrote in message

...



On Mar 15, 1:21 am, "James" wrote:
"Stan Kellett" wrote in message

...

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are
using
the worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago is
now
the most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over last
couple of years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in an
inactive phase and some natural Oceanographic effects countering
the
AGW effect are happening. Once these phases go into a natural
warming
then we will start seeing the AGW accelerating.

Stan

"James" wrote in message
.. .

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be
scared
enough. This should be good. Why didn't they get Spielberg?

================================================== ======

Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start
seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

What does this mean?

I think he's referring to the notion that once ENSO moves into the
next phase and the next cycle of solar activity starts, the CO2 that's
been continually accruing in the atmosphere will express itself in a
kind of 1998 hiccup - but hotter.

So when the sun warms things up and El Nino returns, it's global warming
because of co2 again. Give us a break.

Not correct. Let me try and explain a little more.

Just now the trapping of heat by GGs is continuing to increase as it
has for the last 150 years, because of humankind releasing carbon
previously locked away geologically. This would result in a rise of
temperature, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. The
solar activity that supplies the heat has recently fallen slightly,
the oceans which take up heat have recently been able to increase
their uptake through colder waters surfacing. Global temperature is an
expression of the extent to which these and numerous other heat
shuffling processes interact.

Stan, you read the graphs and my introduction
of them correctly. I was about to respond to
Bruce's post with almost the same words. These
graphs are not forecasts. One graph looks at
about 50 years, another a century-and-a-half.

On Mar 15, 9:19*am, "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.

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

"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message

...

On Mar 15, 11:00 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:41 am, "Stan Kellett"
wrote:

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are using
the
worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago is now
the
most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over last couple
of
years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in an inactive
phase and
some natural Oceanographic effects countering the AGW effect are
happening.
Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

Stan: when you filter out the natural noise,
the rise in the global mean surface temperature
is already accelerating, as it has for some time now.
Please see:

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

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

I see that one predicts about five times the acceleration of the
other. *Great accuracy.......NOT

On Mar 15, 9:19*am, "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.

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

Stan,

You just got done telling us these are not forecasts so what are you
worried about?

On Mar 14, 11:42*pm, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:35:52 -0500, "James"
wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
....
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s....

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be scared
enough. This should be good.

Just give up, idiot. *The science is long since solid,

Ha! What a joke. You AGW retards can't even answer the most
fundamental questions of your phoney science.

"JohnM" wrote in message
...
On Mar 16, 2:55 am, "James" wrote:
"JohnM" wrote in message

...



On Mar 15, 1:21 am, "James" wrote:
"Stan Kellett" wrote in message

...

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are
using
the worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago
is
now
the most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over
last
couple of years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in
an
inactive phase and some natural Oceanographic effects countering
the
AGW effect are happening. Once these phases go into a natural
warming
then we will start seeing the AGW accelerating.

Stan

"James" wrote in message
.. .

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be
scared
enough. This should be good. Why didn't they get Spielberg?

================================================== ======

Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start
seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

What does this mean?

I think he's referring to the notion that once ENSO moves into the
next phase and the next cycle of solar activity starts, the CO2
that's
been continually accruing in the atmosphere will express itself in
a
kind of 1998 hiccup - but hotter.

So when the sun warms things up and El Nino returns, it's global
warming
because of co2 again. Give us a break.

Not correct. Let me try and explain a little more.

Just now the trapping of heat by GGs is continuing to increase as it
has for the last 150 years, because of humankind releasing carbon
previously locked away geologically. This would result in a rise of
temperature, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. The
solar activity that supplies the heat has recently fallen slightly,
the oceans which take up heat have recently been able to increase
their uptake through colder waters surfacing. Global temperature is an
expression of the extent to which these and numerous other heat
shuffling processes interact.

A few things he
1) The original claim was that co2 warming was so major that any natural
variability would be miniscule and not be effective to any great degree.

2) It's already been shown that temperature does not go lock step with
co2 increase. Co2 follows temperature by app 800 years.

3) Warmers have swearing of late that the oceans are warming. Now you
are admitting that they are not and that the natural variability ie.
sun, oscillations, etc are quite relevant to the climate. I mean what
happenned to "unstoppable temperature increase" till we all croak. It
would appear that warmers have forgotten a few things in the past.

4) For all warmers: Always tell the truth. Then, you never have to
remember what you said.

On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
wrote:

On Mar 14, 11:42*pm, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:35:52 -0500, "James"
wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be scared
enough. This should be good.

Just give up, idiot. *The science is long since solid,

Ha! What a joke. You AGW retards can't even answer the most
fundamental questions of your phoney science.

Like there was anything to respond to from James. Not. And you speak
as if you might know science if you ever saw it. I only wish it were
so. Sadly, it's not the case.

Jon

--
Saying religion is the source of morality is like saying
a squirrel is the source of acorns -- [JK, 2002.]