What a mess. These aren't "lower atmosphere" temperature measurements. You couldn't use this data directly as none of the satellites that you posted the graph from actually even measure the lower atmosphere, but the "middle troposphere" which some folks have derived what they think the lower atmosphere might measure -- and even then has a significant amount of sample noise. So you've taken the output from three satellites, then altered them to derive what the lower atmospheric temperature might be, with each satellite having a good sized error since they don't measure the lower atmospheric temperature, and averaged the derived "measures" with noise all together and put them in a graph marked "satellite based temperature." Here's an explanation of the mess you've made: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/ Beyond that, this also doesn't work just as you can't tell if the yearly average for the stock market is going to be up by picking one month.
One of the truest means of comparing atmospheric C02 at ground level is by taking ice core samples, which they've done a million times over, and all show a massive ramp up in C02 levels since the industrialization of the earth, which was when combusting carbon source fuels for manufacturing, heating, generating electricity, etc. really boomed. There is no debating that C02 levels are massively higher now than at any time in the past. The only question that should be asked is why. There are a few credible scientists who believe or at least claim industrialization and carbon fuel consumption don't play a significant role in this trend, but they are massively drowned out by equally credible (and more so) scientists who think that it does, indeed.
That topic has already been beaten to death on this forum. The only problem with the whole argument is that CO2 levels lagged temperature not the other way around. It is difficult to say that CO2 is causing GW when it is lagging the temp.
ONLY WHEN THE TEMPERATURE IS FALLING. When it's rising, they're coincident. And as my statistical test with present-day data showed, temp lags CO2 by about six to seven years. Stop lying.
I am not lying. You are lying. It has been established that CO2 lags temp. There is simply no debate here. Temp vs CO2 plotting from the last 420,000 years has proven this.
Go back and actually read what was written. They said it lagged when temps were falling, and rose in concert with temperatures when temperatures were rising. Using present-day data and very simple statistical tests, you can easily establish that the best fit between temperature and CO2 comes when temperature rises lag CO2 by six to seven years. You selectively quoted, and then ignored clear evidence. Standard Operating Procedure with you guys, but just because you say the same thing over and over doesn't mean you aren't a cynical, manipulative lying POS.
Yawn. This is coming from the guy who thinks they invented cars to prevent horseshit. Please explain how I can use present day data to show a 6 to 7 year lag. Wouldn't the data have to span at least 6 or 7 years? I will stick with the last 420,000 years.
Whether you're right or not (and you're mostly not) the CO2 added to the atmosphere has already been shown to be man-made.
And what exactly does that prove? Trees seem to love it. The CO2 that is stored in fossil fuels was once part of the atmosphere. Saying that some of the CO2 in atmosphere was put there by burning fossil fuels is not significant. Why is there a bias against CO2?