your graph shows that the co2 line goes up in a different manner than man made co2. if you put the graph next to ocean temps... you will have a much better fit. co2 follows change in ocean temps. "The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 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." See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008 Abstract 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 CO2variations 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 11–12 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. Highlights ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.[/quote]
Jem, you idiot, the rising levels of co2 are from fossil fuel burning. The data and science show this to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. Only a total asshole or lying sack of shit would say otherwise. AGW is a fact. Get over it. How should we tax the CO2 pollution? More government? Socialism? Fascism? Only tax AGW deniers? [/quote]
I have science and data... You have name calling and bullshit. Go ahead show your "science" that refutes this. You will not. At best you will present some distorted chart which does not show the annual increases just a cumulative line. the annual increase lines tell the real story. here are the annual changes. you can clearly see change in ocean temps leads change in co2. man made co2 emissions are a steady line... see green line above. The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption. As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf[/QUOTE][/quote]
ha ha ha again with the fraud fool Salby. You're such a turd blossom. Jem just answer yes or no. Is CO2 a GHG?
CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period! - See more at: http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-no...obal-temperature-period/#sthash.GGGqW1bI.dpuf
once again fraudcurrents lies and distracts instead of dealing with science or even producing any. were he not a troll he would be ashamed of himself. those charts are not done by salby. the later chart is part of the peer reviewed paper mentioned above.
Let's look at "Dr Tim Ball". Sounds like a Bond movie. He has spoken twice at The Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.[22][23][24] However, critics have observed that, in fact, Ball was a professor of geography there, has been retired since 1996, and that, in fact, the University of Winnipeg does not have, nor has it ever had, a climatology department.[25][6] Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[26] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[27] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[28] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[29] In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[30] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[27] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[29] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[31][27] Some of Ball's critics have claimed that he has received funding from the fossil fuel industry,[46][6][53] especially through the organization Friends of Science, which Ball co-founded[25] and whose scientific advisory board he sits upon.[3] For example, Peter Gorrie said in the Toronto Star that Friends of Science received a third of its funding from the oil industry. [54] *************************************************************************** Yup, another fine example of the kind of frauds and fools you denier idiots have to resort to. It's pretty funny and pathetic. This guy is right down there with Salby.
I noticed you are not addressing the data once again you ridiculously ignorant drone. These 2 graphs pretty much destroy support for the idea of man mad co2 causing warming. Look at them learn them. The take away from the first chart... The 8 period smoothed annual carbon increase line looks very similar to the biosphere emissions line. These lines looking nothing like the man made co2 line. -- Then the second chart shows co2 follows change in ocean temps... up and down. --- That is real data from places like NOAA. here are the annual changes. you can clearly see change in ocean temps leads change in co2. man made co2 emissions are a steady line... see green line above. The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption. As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henryâs Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf[/QUOTE][/quote][/quote]