Actual New York Times Article entitled "The end of snow?"

[jem]

CO2 accumulation and dissipation trails warming and cooling in all the studies we have on the subject.

when looking at global warming and cooling... looking at the last 2000 years (when the cycles are 10000 - to 20,000 years long) and saying we are in a crisis is just like looking out your window seeing snow and saying there is no global warming.

and even given your time frame... given that there is no statistically discernable warming the last 17 years... there is nothing close to unprecedented warming.


your statements are pathetic.

There has never been a comparable period in history as today. Never before has 9 billion tons per year of the greenhouse gas CO2 been released as is now occurring. The rate of warming and CO2 increase is unprecedented. Certainly within the past few thousand years. The state of the climate is highly unusual.

 

[futurecurrents]

CO2 accumulation and dissipation trails warming and cooling in all the studies we have on the subject.

when looking at global warming and cooling... looking at the last 2000 years (when the cycles are 10000 - to 20,000 years long) and saying we are in a crisis is just like looking out your window seeing snow and saying there is no global warming.

both are conclusions without sufficient foundation or even decent foundation.

your statements are pathetic.

Wrong, you lying asshole, CO2 also leads warming you fucking dickhead and there is lots of evidence for it and is a basic bedrock proven principle of climate science......douchebag. The current climate trends included. That's why they call it a greenhouse gas moron. It's amazing that you STILL don't know what that means.

There has never been a comparable period in history as today. Never before has 9 billion tons per year of the greenhouse gas CO2 been released as is now occurring. The rate of warming and CO2 increase is unprecedented. Certainly within the past few thousand years. The state of the climate is highly unusual.

I

 

[jem]

you are such a lying drone. there is no evidence co2 leads temps... its pure speculation.

the ice cores... show co2 trails change in temps...
and now we have professor salby and a paper explaining how co2 trails change in ocean temps by 9 to 12 months.


I will produce a paper and a video proving my point and you will scream names and lie your ass off... because you have no science...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2ROw_cDKwc0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[jem]

Then this papers produces the data and proof showing co2 lags change in ocean temps.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

The highlights of the paper are:

&#9658; 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.

&#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 1111&#8211;12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

&#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

&#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

&#9658; Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

 

[futurecurrents]

Ha ha, fucking Salby. What a fool he is. Real climate scientists laugh at him.

Jem you stupid piece of lying shit. When are you going to post something relevant?

When will you realize what a greenhouse gas is? Seasonal uptake and emission from the ocean of CO2 IS IRRELEVANT YOU STUPID DOUCHEBAG. Do you know what SEASONAL means?


So, you don't know who is a reputable climate scientist.

You don't know what a greenhouse gas is.

You don't know how irrelevant seasonal CO2 changes are.

You don't know that 97% of the world's scientists agree on the basics of man made global warming.

I'm sure your next post will show us even more that you don't know.

 

[jem]

hey ignorant lying drone... the data is the data...

nobody is denying the data... and this is the paper.... it concludes things very similar to what salby was showing with his charts and data.
remember... after you lied about it I already showed you this paper was peer reviewed.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


Abstract
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 1112 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5&#8211;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.





Highlights
&#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11&#8211;12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. &#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5&#8211;10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. &#9658; Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. &#9658; Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. &#9658; Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

 

[futurecurrents]

P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.

Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.

Bozo? SkS lists "Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural" as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and this earlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write "How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic", but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum

 

[jem]

typical leftist drone character attack.
you make up b.s. without the support of science. man made co2 is causing warming.
then when scientists show you data that shows co2 trails change in ocean temps...

you attack the scientist instead of the data...

P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.

Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.

Bozo? SkS lists "Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural" as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and this earlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write "How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic", but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum

 

[futurecurrents]

hey ignorant lying drone... the data is the data...

nobody is denying the data... and this is the paper.... it concludes things very similar to what salby was showing with his charts and data.
remember... after you lied about it I already showed you this paper was peer reviewed.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


Abstract
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 1112 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5

 

[futurecurrents]

hey ignorant lying drone... the data is the data...

nobody is denying the data... and this is the paper.... it concludes things very similar to what salby was showing with his charts and data.
remember... after you lied about it I already showed you this paper was peer reviewed.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658


Holy shit. You don't know what "irrelevant means" It's like you're fucking retarded. Have you had a stroke or something? You're just deceiving lying piece of twisted shit.

THIS is relevant....