you have gone off the deep end fraudcurrents... every scientists accepts the fact co2 trails temperature. see the first chart shows man made co2 has not link to temperature and the second chart shows co2 follows change in ocean temps... up and down. 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]
CO2 certainly does lead temps. Actually there is very little lead time. The effect of rising CO2 is almost immediate. Rising CO2 causes essentially concurrent rise in earth temps. This is basic climate science 101.
actually if you look at the paper that came with the chart latter chart (just above your post) ... the lead author is humlum and the 2 other papers I have cited plus the salby video we presented you see that change in ocean temps leads change in co2 by 1 year. Air temps lead co2 by 9 months.
Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection - GHG theory - from Hansen et al. Global warming was not yet an issue at the KNMI where the focus was much more on climate variability, which explains why the article of Hansen et al. was unnoticed at that time by the second author. It turns out to be a very interesting read. They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake. Obviously climate science was a mature field even then: the concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much. Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain. Next they attribute global mean temperature trend 1880-1980 to CO2, volcanic and solar forcing. Most interestingly, Fig.6 (below) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. At a time when the northern hemisphere was cooling and the global mean temperature still below the values of the early 1940s, they confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. They assume that no action will be taken before the global warming signal will be significant in the late 1990s, so the different energy-use scenarios only start diverging after that. The first 31 years of this projection are thus relatively well-defined and can now be compared to the observations. We used the GISS Land-Ocean Index that uses SST over the oceans (the original one interpolated from island stations) and overlaid the graph from the KNMI Climate Explorer on the lower left-hand corner of their Fig.6. Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed. They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%, similar or better in magnitude than the CMIP5 models over the same period (although these tend to overestimate the trend, still mainly due to problems related to aerosols). To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...1-temperature-projection/#sthash.mPJWKWGz.dpu
This weeks culprit - The Atlantic Ocean That evil ocean let's drain it. It is causing the hiatus Atlantic Ocean responsible for global warming hiatus http://www.wallstreetotc.com/atlantic-ocean-responsible-for-global-warming-hiatus-scientists/27839/
Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. Humans are at a difficult crossroad. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It is also the direct cause fueling an impending climate disaster. There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
I don't know that I'd go that far. I'm still waiting for someone to connect the dots regarding the increase in temperature in the North Atlantic, the change in the Atlantic Conveyor, and the increase in the rate of melt in the Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets (the last of which is of course caused by global warming). It's beginning, but so far no one has done it.