in a comment ... Philip Bradley says: April 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm Note how the Younger Dryas shows up clearly in the temperature proxies but merely causes CO2 levels to flatten. Thats persuasive that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels. When temperatures fell during the YD, CO2 just stopped rising. This is the point I made in the last thread â the presence of the Younger Dryas makes the initiation of the present interglacial fair game for this kind of AGW trickery, since â as you point out, temperatures rose twice, while CO2 rose only once. The resultant smearing in the time direction of temperature proxies (assisted by the huge variability and error in such proxies) allows Skakun et al. to get away with this conjuring trick. Its enough to allow the MSM e.g. BBC to crow that this powerful skeptical argument â temp rise predating CO2 rise â has been falsified, when it clearly has not. It is curious how CO2 flatlined during the Younger Dryas. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/ ----- This paper âGlobal Warming preceded by increasing CO2â¦â in Nature magazine and propagated by the BBC achieves this aim by: 1. Dishonest and absurd selection and lumping together of data for different hemispheres which behave differently using the natural delays in the North to HIDE the rises in the South which preceded and drove CO2 out of the sea. 2. Delusional interpretation of their own concocted data to brazenly argue absurdity. âThe publication of this paper is a monument to the corrupt, secret, unaccountable âpeer-reviewâ process which dominates modern science and if Nature magazine has a shred of support for evidenceâbased science they would withdraw it forthwith. The paper is Dangerous because it is being used by the CO2 sect and its adherents in governments as a religious tome to justify CO2 tax robbery and the holding back of world developmentâ. Links: http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No20.pdf That papers has more... Extensive studies (2002) of The phase relationships between Antarctic and Greenland Climate records (3) show that the two time series have a fundamentally different nature and while Greenland/Arctic LAGS about 1600 years after temperature rises in the Antarctic/Southern ocean mathematical analysis alone cannot be sure which is the driver because of the quasi periodic nature of the data which does not rule out (even if it is less convincing) the Arctic being the driver. However the authors Steig and Alley point out that ârapid Greenland warmings almost always occur at times when Antarctica is already warmingâ. This is consistent with Antarctic changes being the driver and facts of the structure of the world make that a necessity. The Antarctic temperatures are a measure of the temperature of the surrounding largest water mass in the world - the Southern ocean and the south halves of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. When this warms CO2 is slowly released (and note the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the air) with a delay of about 800 years (Pto for slide 7 of http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No5a.pdf ). General Southern and equatorial ocean and land warming continues and the Arctic (Greenland) warms up rapidly later in some triggering process (eg perhaps involving Gulf stream shifts). By lumping together the North and South hemispheres (favouring North) the authors (Shakun et al) of the Nature piece conceal the physical sequence of events and construct a data set which they claim shows their average world temperature might lag CO2 changes (although their own graphs donât show that). Their average data set HAS NO PHYSICAL MEANING. It is a trick to âhide the riseâ of the Southern Ocean. The logic of their position is that the whole of the Antarctic and Southern Oceans warm up in response to increases in CO2 which have yet to take place 800 years in the future!
Jem, Thanks for posting that. I think we may see a retraction from Nature Mag. I cant believe so called scientists would stoop to something like that.
China and India with no mandatory emissions cap under the Kyoto Protocol. Somehow that doesn't present a problem to the GW fringe groups. Only America is bad for not supporting regualtions that only America will have to follow tells me the whole emissions deal is a scam.
China's environmental and labor movements are growing fast, faster than ours ever did. (They are standing on the shoulders of giants.) : )
And they just can't wait to put their country at an economic disadvatage by adopting job killing carbon limits.
=========== Thank you Capt Obvious; i like sarcasm sometimes. I heard on the news recently China told the US State Dept to stop monitoring/broadcasting its air quality.US State Dept gets one right, refuses to comply. I have seen China gov suprise us with the truth sometimes.China news reoporter asked the Chinese gov, ''why did you change the name from swine flu to a numbered flu??''. The Chinese official smiled & said pork is big business, ''next question'' Same reason the climate change scammers changed to that name ; from global warming, to climate change.LOL
comment to that yahoo article. Amazon is so good at predicting customer demands that when I ordered a travel book on China it gave me recommendations for gas masks
The presence of water complicates how and when the effects are distributed, but at the end of the day CO2 still causes warming far far more than orbital/solar variations do. Night side of Mercury = -185C avg.