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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Amazing! I guess these guys and the rest of the world's scientists haven't heard about that! How could that be?! American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)
this is the science and the data and its part of the reason why the agw nutter bandwagon is losing scientists in droves. 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
Amazing! I guess these guys and the rest of the world's scientists haven't heard about that! How could that be?! American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)
You do realize that most Meteorologists in North America do not support AGW and the absurd statement you posted above from the American Meteorological Society. Do we need to dig up all the quotes and articles from leading Meteorologists again about their lack of support for man-made climate change? Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists don’t believe in man-made global warming http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...ists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/
In about 15 years man-made global warming will be viewed as a failed theory that is mocked on late night TV.
MIT Professor Exposes Climate Change Hysteria http://www.storyleak.com/mit-professor-climate-change/ Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change. “The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.” Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.” “Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.” Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.” “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said. Lindzen has frequently been attacked by climate alarmists for refusing to give into political pressures regarding climate sThe growing number of failed predictions from the global warming crowd has only cooled the public’s belief in recent years. From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice. Similarly, Gore made desperate warnings over the danger of increased hurricanes during the same time period. Soon after, climate scientists had trouble explaining the record low hurricanes that soon followed. In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore went on to claim that global warming would soon wipe coastal areas of Florida off the map in as little as a few decades. Sea level statistics taken 18 years later revealed Gore’s predictions to be completely inaccurate. White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren, who made failed predictions of global cooling in his 1977 book Ecoscience, attempted to blame the recent “polar vortex” on global warming. Researchers soon uncovered a 1974 Time Magazine article that blamed a cold polar vortex on global cooling instead. Climate change alarmists have become so crazed in their beliefs that some have attempted to equate skepticism with racism, claiming any denial of global warming is a “sickness” in need of “treatment.” Unsurprisingly, major environmental issues such as the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster seem to be completely ignored by Gore and company. Given the massive amount of money Al Gore has continued to make from generating climate fear, it seems unlikely that any real disaster unable to generate cash will receive proper attention.
"However, the survey notes that this is most likely a “conservative estimate” of the global warming consensus among meteorologists. The survey specifically asked about mankind’s influence on rising global temperatures over a 150-year period, and some survey respondents indicated later that they would have changed their answers if the survey had asked specifically about the last 50 years of warming." Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/p...eve-in-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2rerS7LoF Hell, I wouldn't agree to the 150 year thing. The more proper question is fifty years.