On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Roger Coppock wrote:

2010 390.53 4 months of data


Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. That's entertainment!

Ah, Roger, CO2 data displays seasonal variations. CO2 is
highest during the northern hemisphere winter and early
spring. Guess which four months are included (so far)
in the 2010 data. (Hint: it is currently May 2010).

The Mauna Loa data looks like an annual sinusoid on top
of a straight line increase. This is not exponential.

It is an interesting question
where the increase comes from. If, as some say, CO2 comes
out of the oceans as a response to warming, then the CO2
increase we see now would be the result of the temperature
rise during the medieval warming period eight hundred and
fifty years ago.

But we do not have time to ponder interesting questions any
more. It was forty-six Fahrenheit this morning when the sun
came up, and the temperature has been rising exponentially
ever since then. By tomorrow we will all be cooked.

On May 11, 1:39*pm, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)

Roger Coppock wrote:
2010 390.53 * 4 months of data

Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. *That's entertainment!

*Ah, Roger, CO2 data displays seasonal variations. *CO2 is
*highest during the northern hemisphere winter and early
*spring. *Guess which four months are included (so far)
*in the 2010 data. *(Hint: *it is currently May 2010).

*The Mauna Loa data looks like an annual sinusoid on top
*of a straight line increase. *This is not exponential.

It is an exponential Those with more mathematical
sophistication can test comparative two-degree of
freedom curve fits, linear and exponential, on the
entire data set. I refuse waste my time to argue
this with the ignorant.

*It is an interesting question
*where the increase comes from. *If, as some say, CO2 comes
*out of the oceans as a response to warming,

Currently, the oceans are gaining CO2. Look up
the phrase "Ocean Acidification."

On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
Roger Coppock wrote:

Â*The Mauna Loa data looks like an annual sinusoid on top
Â*of a straight line increase. Â*This is not exponential.

It is an exponential Those with more mathematical
sophistication can test comparative two-degree of
freedom curve fits, linear and exponential, on the
entire data set. I refuse waste my time to argue
this with the ignorant.

A person can curve fit an exponential through anything.
For the fit to mean anything the data must look exponential
to begin with. When you curve fit a straight line to an exponential,
you just get a very small exponential coefficient:

e^^(kx) ~ 1+kx for small kx

As I pointed out previously, your exponential departs from a straight
line by only one percent.

And your calling 2010 the highest CO2 in history is premature
considering the average includes only the four months with the
highest CO2 concentration. No, I will go farther. That is
deceptive. Perhaps you deceive yourself with this.

Â*It is an interesting question
Â*where the increase comes from. Â*If, as some say, CO2 comes
Â*out of the oceans as a response to warming,

Currently, the oceans are gaining CO2. Look up
the phrase "Ocean Acidification."

OK. The oceans are gaining CO2, but they cannot hold
any more CO2. Which is it?

AFAIK CO2 precipitates on the ocean floor where there is
too much. From there carbonates are subducted into the
crust and mantle. From there they return to the atmosphere
by various geological processes including volcanoes. Still
looking for that missing 3 teratons of carbon coming from the
earth in the last fifty years. Where is it in your carbon
budget?

On May 12, 9:16*am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 11, 1:39*pm, Trawley Trash wrote:





On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)

Roger Coppock wrote:
2010 390.53 * 4 months of data

Watch the fossil fools dust off an ancient archive of
pseudo-science and arcane mathematics in a lame attempt
to challenge these basic facts. *That's entertainment!

*Ah, Roger, CO2 data displays seasonal variations. *CO2 is
*highest during the northern hemisphere winter and early
*spring. *Guess which four months are included (so far)
*in the 2010 data. *(Hint: *it is currently May 2010).

*The Mauna Loa data looks like an annual sinusoid on top
*of a straight line increase. *This is not exponential.

It is an exponential *Those with more mathematical
sophistication can test comparative two-degree of
freedom curve fits, linear and exponential, on the
entire data set. *I refuse waste my time to argue
this with the ignorant.

*It is an interesting question
*where the increase comes from. *If, as some say, CO2 comes
*out of the oceans as a response to warming,

Currently, the oceans are gaining CO2. *Look up
the phrase "Ocean Acidification."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is an exponential Those with more mathematical
sophistication can test comparative two-degree of
freedom curve fits, linear and exponential, on the
entire data set. I refuse waste my time to argue
this with the ignorant.

Roger,

You refuse to waste your time to argue this with the ignorant.

That is exactly what creationists say. They refuse to argue their
"science" with the "ignorant".

It is much easier to maintain your fantasy, when you don't have to
explain it to anybody.

The posts of "Trawley" that I have read, don't appear ignorant. Could
it be that you don't have a good scientific counter-argument? So you
resort to ad hominem and insult instead. That is the standard method
for alarmists.