that is not a response you incompetent idiot. I just showed you that temps lead co2. you don't dispute that by showing a chart of co2. deal with the data you ignorant troll.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/ 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 âCO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2â The paper finds the âoverall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,â 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.
Here is the published paper. This way the ignorant lying troll can not blame the publisher of the website. 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 11â12 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
How many times do I have to tell you? YOU are an incompetent asshole and a fraud. And you suck your gay brother's dick.
wow... this paper has very solid graphs and charts... its seems to have led Salby... this is pretty amazing. click here if you want to see excerpts from the paper. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658#f0015 these are the authors. The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature Ole Humluma, b, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway Hey fc you troll... are these guys working for the Koch brothers.
It was out... before I saw Salbys video. I think I had read this at the time and why I told piezoe I did not think Salby was saying anything new. Highlights ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11â12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5â10 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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658#f0015
wow... I just read part of the paper.... I cited above... here is the conclusion.... There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature. (1) 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. (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11â 12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5â10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. (5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris. (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
Let us review: More confirmation that Futuecurrent is really Chicken Little Thread Started 09-16-13 Quotes from futurecurrents: cited 8 times "The Weather Channel.....More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase....." and (cited 7 times)"American Meteorological Society..... "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate......" futurecurrents also posted...2 times "The founder of the Weather Channel is an idiot right wing nut job like you. Not a scientist......." and there's more"......they are only meteorologists, not climatologists .....proves blind adherence to right wing ideology is present in weathermen... little reason to think weathermen would think much differently than the general public......They are not climatologists.... I'm not including the 11% of them who don't know GW is happening..... They are not worth even listening to. But it shows how stupid meteorologists can be........" Also cited more than once as proponents of AGW by fc "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with ....... American Geophysical Union which states......." as long as the source agrees with Chicken Little, it's deemed as worthy. If the same organization or a member has an opinion that differs, according to fc: "..... propaganda put out by the fossil fuel powers that be..... study of a select group of Canadian petroleum engineers..... prostitute themselves for the fossil fuel industry interests..... can't recognize that it is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry....... barely worth talking about except as an example of a hack scientist...... exposed his skeptical view of global warming, a geochemist who directs the Center, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry....." fc goes on to state.. "My data is flawed? Well then NOAA's, NASA's and virtually every related science source of the data is flawed because that's the only one's I post. Not stuff from blogs or TV weathermen." As for the oil industry, fc cited Exxon 10 times and BP 6 times as in agreement with AGW. "Exxon says: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related.... all the world's experts in the field, and Exxon and BP and every science org in the world..... Yet again one shows there is dissident fc counters with.... Yes, nutters. Like Exxon....page 160. Chicken Little accuses the skeptics of refusing to review the evidence for AGW....".....continuing to maintain a lie perpetrated and promoted by the denier industry.... Because you don't have the intellectual rigor or honesty to actually read any further than the out-of context "Hiding the decline" quote, or try to understand why it was actually said......" More quotes from fc on the need to fully review the information:........"I don't care what f#*king journal this was in..... ..It's not a site for the real science...... I don't need to read them....... denialist propaganda machine website brought to you by the fossil fuel interests...... BULLSHIT from a BULLSHIT website...... and to read further is a waste of time..... propaganda website....... Your factoid is as irrelevant as you are.... NASA AGW skeptics... So what? They are partisan and not qualified.........Yeah, blah blah blah.....so what?" fc actually used the .."blah blah...so what?" retort 5 times. Now fc posted charts a total of 41 times (surprisingly only 6 times for his hockey stick chart with the scary scaling) and I'd have to say that at least "97%" of them, we've all seen far too many times. Should anyone else post a chart..........fc states:"...Chart is wrong... Nice bullshit chart... crap chart not up to date..... Compare that crap chart with this accurate one.... It's an irrelevant chart.... poorly measured past. " fc also felt he needed to point out that the "deniers" here on ET .... " are not interested in honest debate. Since we're totaling things up, how about some honest debate quotes..... fc used profanity 91 times, (this includes the F word 42 times) and called someone a prick 3 times, a douchebag 7 times, a whore once. fc also felt the need to respond with something about the price of Tea in China, (wtf) and blame the Koch Bros. 12 times. "Man has increased levels (CO2) by 40%. There is no question about it." The "40%" number is another sign of Chicken Little syndrome. (FYI fc used this at least 18 times in this tread alone) . 40% sounds so much more scary then an increase of 110 ppm. More Chicken Little type quotes from fc".... the earth has not stopped warming at all. In fact if anything it is accelerating... with rapidly rising sea levels and the potential for disasters..... the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly..... On balance, all the earth's ice is melting...... assume that the 0.5°C per century warming trend discussed will continue into the future..... The current rise is also unprecedented in rate......" a whole half degree C.....mmmmm.....that is scary. (Question: How do you know its 0.5 C, has man had the ability to precisely measure the temps for the whole globe for the last 100 years?? (and don't give that stuff about tree rings... I want something a little more "Scientific" "....no question about it..... scientific fact .......The science is clear, overwhelming and obvious..... The hockey stick is proven, real and factual...... " Sorry, I didn't count all the "science fact", and "no question about its". But I did note that when it suits him the quote "....... Nothing in science is proven...." popped up. More miscellaneous ranting from fc:" American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs...." ...the AMA....??? U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases......13 U.S. government departments and agencies........... But our gov is owned by big oil/coal.... You're like some retarded broken record...... do you have a garage ...." last but not least ... "You guys need to be drowned out. Or just plain drowned...." Like a true Conformicrat, any and all skepticism is to be squelched. (1984)(fc stated that ET AGW skeptics should die, commit suicide, or be murdered 9 times.) and we're the ones that are deluded.
"globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data" In other words they are measuring the CO2 levels at the surface of the oceans and are measuring, among other things, the biological effect on the CO2 level. We are not interested in the CO2 levels at the surface of the ocean. We are interested in the CO2 levels measured high in the troposphere like this one below. There is no variation of CO2 levels to even compare to a variation in temps. You are so fucking dumb and gullible to believe the shit you read on these fake climate sites funded by The Heritage Foundation and other similar fossil fuel interests. So these charts and this paper that you are all excited about does not say anything relevant or usefull. It is obfuscation and disinformation and misrepresentation at it's best. The paper is being offered as something of proof it is not even measuring. Typical denialist misrepresentation crap. And you repeat this shit. Pathetic righty sheep tool that you are. If you can't win with the facts, baffle them with bullshit. Right jerm? You are a dealer in lies. Do you work for the Koch bros like Watts?