fc post scary graphs... we post analysis of those graphs. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...global-warming/ Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
The authors also say, âChanges in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.â Comment: It seems that AGW (human caused warming) proponents have a cause and effect problem. The figure below is from the cited paper. In that figure, green represents changes in CO2, blue represents change in sea surface temperature, and red is the change in global surface temperature (HADCRUT3). http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...-in-global-co2-or-rise-in-global-temperature/
here is the paper... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11â12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5â10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
graph of leaked from un IPCC report showing how their 4 models failed over the last 20 years. http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncst.../Scitech/0/371/global warming ar5 model b.jpg here is the story... fair and balanced... http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/
So what. Given that is an indisputable scientific fact that CO2 has gone up about 35% over the last 150 years, indisputably from the burning of fossil fuels, and we know CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas, how could it be that temps should NOT go up? Huh? The sound of crickets LOL
IPCC projections about global warming proving to be inaccurate Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Underplaying the intensity A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Some climate researchers also worry that recent institutional changes could accentuate the organization's conservative bias in the fifth IPCC assessment, to be released in parts starting in September 2013. The tendency to underplay climate impacts needs to be recognized, conclude the authors of a recent paper exploring this bias. Failure to do so, they wrote in theirstudy published last month in the journal Global Environmental Change, "could prevent the full recognition, articulation and acknowledgement of dramatic natural phenomena that may in fact be occurring." Conservative bias The conservative bias stems from several sources, scientists say. Part can be attributed to science's aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions: So-called outlier events â results at far ends of the spectrum â are often pruned. Such controversial findings require years of painstaking, independent verification. IPCC Vice-Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele countered that "the mandate of IPCC is to assess where there is consensus, and to reflect the full diversity of views that are scientifically valid where there is not."* He conceded that by requiring teams of authors to agree upon a reportâs text, the IPCC process is inherently conservative. Getting the balance right, he said in an e-mail, is "not always easy." Oreskes, Oppenheimer and their co-authors argue the conservative bias pervades all of climate science. But the underestimation by the IPCC is particularly worrisome, scientists say, because the organization is charged specifically with advising policy makers on the most relevant, accurate climate science. Pattern of under-projection The pattern, said Oreskes in an interview, is under- rather than over-projection. "These data simply do not support the allegations by skeptics that scientists have been alarmists," she said. One example: In November, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., took a closer look at the computer models underpinning most climate predictions and concluded future warming is likely to be on the high side of climate projections. Another example: This summer, NASA climatologist James Hansen co-authored an analysis of recent extreme weather across the globe. Hansen's team arrived at a strikingly different conclusion from an IPCC special assessment on the topic released just months earlier. The Hansen study, published in August in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that rapid climate change over the past 30 years has loaded the dice in favor of extreme weather. The chance of extreme summer heat is now 13 percent higher than in 1980, the report found. Record heat waves seen by Europe in 2003, Russia in 2010, and Texas in 2011 would not have happened without human-caused global warming, it concluded. Hansen's conclusion contrasted sharply with the hedging in the IPCC special assessment on extreme weather, published in March, 2012: "Confidence in projecting changes in the direction and magnitude of climate extremes depends on many factors," the report's summary for policymakers began. "Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain." The melting Arctic ice pack may offer such an example. Scientists suspect that a diminished Arctic ice pack has the power to shift weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere. Less ice, the hypothesis goes, would weaken and shift the jet stream, causing it to block normal weather patterns and hold storms, dry spells and heat waves in place so that they pound a single location for days, weeks or months. But with the ice supposed to stay intact until 2070 or later, this was largely a theoretical problem for the future. No longer: Summer ice in the Arctic hit a new low in 2012, and now some scientists say there is likely a link between that meltdown and the record-breaking drought that caused an estimated $28 billion in damage across the United States, as well as the soggy summer that left Britain drenched. Even Hurricane Sandy has a potential Arctic tie-in, with researchers suggesting that the anomalous strong high pressure weather system over Greenland, forcing Sandy ashore in October, was influenced by the ice cap's decline. These events â and especially the rapidity with which they are occurring â were not foreseen by IPCC models. Input from contrarians Penn State's Mann also feels that IPCC higher-ups, fearful of being attacked by climate skeptics, have "bent over backwards" to allow greater input from contrarians. "There's no problem in soliciting wide views that fairly represent ⦠a peer group community," he said. "My worry is that they are stacking the deck, giving greater weight to contrarian views than is warranted by peer-reviewed literature." There are indeed more authors for next yearâs assessment â 831 as compared to about 500 for the 2007 report, said IPCCâs van Ypersele, âBut there are many more chapters as well, because the scope of the fifth assessment is larger.â The resulting document, he said, will be âbased on real science and not ideology.â "Overall, the IPCC reports represent the best source of quality information on climate change," van Ypersele said. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nce-predictions-prove-too-conservative&page=4
Yes, of course it's fishy. Like virtually everything gwb has said here, it's wrong. It's wrong because he gets all of his information about AGW from websites run by the FF industry's denial machine instead of from places like NOAA. He's wrong because he's deluded into thinking the entire climate science around the world is in on some grand conspiracy.