not that distorted perspective chart again. How many times do I have to show you that the data shows co2 trails the change in ocean temps? co2 is not the leader its the laggard. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/ Reposted from the Hockey Schtick, as I’m out of time and on the road.- Anthony An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. The highlights of the paper are: ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 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 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. The paper: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Ole Humluma, b,
You do realize that by posting a chart over and over again, the flaws inherent in it don't go away, right? Particularly, the time period and lack of substantial time data on it in regards to the age of the planet.
here is the paper... with the data showing co2 is the laggard. 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 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 About these ads
Any discussion about "Global Warming" that does not take into account China, India, and Russia is worthless. The fact that leftists never seriously address this only goes to PROVE that their agenda is more about taxing Americans than "saving the planet".
Any talk about the science of AGW that doesn't recognize that it's true to a level of confidence above 95% is worthless. First the science.....then the policy, if any.
I posed this question to someone other than FC a few years back. The answer was "we must set an example by our actions". So far, I have seen little evidence that our example is being followed by the countries you mentioned. It infuriates me that we continue to make sacrifices (my power is coal powered, and every time I reduce my footprint, I still get hit with new price hikes, for example), and are told we must continue to do more even though, as you indicated, it won't make a difference until and if other large industrial countries take action.
Europe Dumps Global Warming Efforts: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogs...lysis+(Mish's+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis)
FRAUD on temp data. BUSTED!!! http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/
Steven Goddard is a fraud and so is this "study". One clue is the bullshit website this is on. Goddard is your typical know nothing AGW denier blogger. He used to be a regular guest author on WattsUpWithThat, except that he became a regular embarrassment, and he and Watts parted ways. In one of the worst examples (although there are so many to choose from), Watts had to apologize for the utter stupidity of one of Goddard's articles: "My apologies to readers. I'll leave it up (note altered title) as an example of what not to do when graphing trends" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/ar... John Cook rebutted another of Goddard's idiotic WUWT posts here as well: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up... Goddard now runs his own blog. Considering that he was too ignorant even for the exceptionally low standards at WUWT, not surprisingly, very few people actually read it. Apparently it's not his real name and Steven Goddard is a pseudonym, which is funny, because Anthony Watts claims that everybody who writes on his site goes by their real names. Once again, the denier idiots have to use frauds and bullshit to support their moronic position.