klassman6 here, and I can't let you and riverat1 have all the fun. Your wild assertions are just too irresistable to ignore! First of all, your charting is of the HADCRUT data, instead of the GISS data, which automatically reduces the amount of global temperature anomalies due to the fact that the HADCRUT dataset under-represents the arctic temperature increases due to the paucity of data collection sites in the arctic, an area where the greatest surface temps are taking place.
You talk about how there is only .4C degree per century increase knowing fully well that the rate is increasing over time, not just merrily oscillating away as you selectively define your mathematical description on your website. For instance, 2/3 of the warming from 1880 until the present has occurred since 1975, and global temps in the past decade was about .8C degrees warmer than the 1880-1920 mean. The decadal increases since the 1970s has been between 0.15 and 0.2C degrees.
link:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdfAnd then there's the statement about CO2 ppm not being very much, which you correctly attribute the annual average during the last decade as being only 1.8ppm/year, not 3. What you then fail to say is that in the 50s and 60s the annual increase was less than 1ppm/year, or less than half of what it has been for the past 10 years.
Finally, I want to just remind you that your descriptive fit of curve for a relatively short historical duration is just that--a descriptive fit. It has no powers of attribution, is limited in its predictive power (I might say that the earliest section of the temperature curve does not fit your 67 year average anyway), and gives us no insight on the other preponderance of data in all other areas where scientists are monitoring changes attributable to climate change.
I know that not of the above will persuade you, either, but, like I said, I couldn't resist!
