[JohnM]

I've made four attempts to post this under the original header. Each
time Google's news-reader informs me my post was successful. But the
post never appeared. Anyone else experiencing problems?

On Oct 5, 3:05 pm, Trawley Trash wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:08:10 -0700 (PDT)

Roger Coppock wrote:

If you curve fit to the South Pole data you
would get a completely different answer. It
look like 2ppm per year to me.

So what does the Mauna Loa data look like to you? Best you remove
those blinkers before attempting to answer that question.

Then, you need both glasses and a high school
level math course.

I invite anyone to go to the noaa website
and see for themselves which of us needs
glasses.

It is obviously you, Ms. Trash. The website you reference clearly
shows the current level of CO2 is ca. 388, both at Mauna Loa and the
South Pole. Roger was partly incorrect. What you need is a *junior*
school course in essential numeracy.

As Ms Trash snipped the incorrect calculation she performed (I wonder
why?) I restore it for the context:
QUOTE TT "Given 90 years that works out to 180ppm + 400ppm or 580ppm
in 2100. This is no disaster, and we have 90 years to study the
problem."/quote

The correct calculation is ca.388 + ca.400 = ca.788 ppm

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/

When you go to this website please click on
the South Pole at the bottom of the map to the
right. Otherwise you will only see charts
of Mauna Loa data when you click on *submit*.

This is nonsense. The only discernable difference between them is a
seasonal effect showing up much more in the ML graph. Back to the
kindergarten for you, missey.

[T. Keating]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:58:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnM
wrote:

I've made four attempts to post this under the original header. Each
time Google's news-reader informs me my post was successful. But the
post never appeared. Anyone else experiencing problems?

snip..

Google replies to old threads are time limited to 60vdays..

http://sites.google.com/site/tomihasa/google-groups-faq

"Q: Why can't I reply to messages?

To reply with the Google Groups web interface, you need to be signed
in to Google Groups.

You can't reply in a group unless you are a member of the group
(unmoderated Usenet newsgroups seem to be an exception).

You can't reply to messages older than 60 days. Google Groups is not
the only discussion service to use a time limit for replying to
messages. The probable reason for a time limit is that the longer
the discussion gets the more probably no-one has time or interest
to read all the messages in the discussion and the longer the
discussion gets, the more useless it gets."

[JohnM]

On Oct 9, 2:07*am, T. Keating wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:58:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnM

wrote:
I've made four attempts to post this under the original header. Each
time Google's news-reader informs me my post was successful. But the
post never appeared. Anyone else experiencing problems?

snip..

Google replies to old threads are time limited to 60vdays..

http://sites.google.com/site/tomihasa/google-groups-faq

"Q: Why can't I reply to messages?

To reply with the Google Groups web interface, you need to be signed
in to Google Groups.

You can't reply in a group unless you are a member of the group
(unmoderated Usenet newsgroups seem to be an exception).

You can't reply to messages older than 60 days. Google Groups is not
the only discussion service to use a time limit for replying to
messages. The probable reason for a time limit is that the longer
the discussion gets the more probably no-one has time or interest
to read all the messages in the discussion and the longer the
discussion gets, the more useless it gets."

Thanks. I already knew all of that. The problem seems to have partly
resolved itself, with *some* of my messages now appearing :-)