I read the summary and I tried to click on the links. The link for 2 and 3 was the first page of an abstract... which I believe I read before and I believe there conclusions are not nearly as solid as the website made them out to be. But, nevertheless... it does not explain the main point I was making. if the ice core shows that temperatures rise before CO2 accumulates. Therefore CO2 might not be the cause of Global Warming but a byproduct of global warming. Therefore our contribution to CO2 accumulation may be unimportant.
As you say CO2 may be a forcing or a feedback and has been a feedback at some times in the past history of the planet. But the overwhelming evidence based on such things as the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon and direct calculation of human generated emissions is that the current rise is due to humans and is a forcing of the climate system. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Satellites schmatellites. Those of us who have been alive for more than two decades know it's warming. And with a couple of exceptions (inside my freezer being one), the world's ice is retreating. Unless the world's ice has become politicized...
read it thanks.. this quote from the author seemed to exhibit emotions rather than logic - "To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:..... For that quote to make any sense the author would have to prove that the only reason warming proceeds CO2 increase is the milankovitch cycle. Something he did not do. In summary what I could conclude from this article is - Warming proceeds CO2 rise. But that we do not know all the factors which go into the CO2 accumulation. Fair enough. also -- The author says CO2 amplifies the warming... but I did not catch where he got that info. That would not be surprising... but then that also does not do us any good when deciding if man made CO2 is having a negative effect. Perhaps the man made CO2 will modulate the potential extreme?
Sorry no "satellitegate" here, please move along. If you can make your way though all the false outrage and noise in this piece of shabby journalism you will find that the questionable data is NOT used in compiling the global temperature record. "Dr. Roy Spencer commented, âObviously, whatever happened to NOAA-16 AVHRR (or the software) introduced HUGE errors. We always had trouble with NOAA-16 AMSU, and dropped it long ago. It had calibration drifts that made it unsuitable for climate monitoring.â Spencer is responsible for compiling the UAH satellite temperature record, and incidentally is something of a climate skeptic. As usual, SkepticalScience separates the signal from the noise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/of-satellites-and-temperatures.html The world is still warming, and these data problems have no bearing on that fact whatsoever. This would hardly be the first time there has been a problem with some scientific instruments nor will it be the last. What's all the fuss about?