On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
wrote:

On Aug 5, 9:51Â*pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
Wake up, Al! Â*I've answered this question for you before.

On Aug 5, 6:02Â*pm, Al Bedo ? wrote:

Great! 1.5K/Century

Not even at the IPCC best estimate of the "Low Scenario"

To look at acceleration of a climate trend, one
needs about 5 decades to achieve statistical
significance. Â*We'll need to wait another two
decades to collect enough satellite data. Meanwhile,
there are more than enough conventional ground
data to see that the warming is clearly accelerating.

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

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

•• As usual Roger is wrong and is trying to
validate his stupidity on his own site.

He said he doesn't have a web site, so that must just
be his home page and cox.net must be an ISP.

The present cooling trend, in 50 years, will
clearly reflect the start of the new ice age.

We can do something about that easier than we
can reduce CO2 emissions.

I was looking at the underbrush growth today and
wondered if a lot more vegetation could cause cooling,
a tree might evaporate 30 gallons a day, and at 1000 BTU
per pound, that could mean 240,000 BTU per day of
evaporative cooling over an area of maybe 20000
square feet, and that may represent as much as
70,000 watt hours per day.

Maybe woger could convert that to watts per
square meter.

There are lots of trees.