Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
No you're not. You are presenting a bullshit defective paper that would not pass peer review. What the paper is presenting has nothing to do with the over-all greenhouse effect.
Also, you are simply wrong again, CO2 has been shown to lead temps and I have shown you the two charts proving it. But you are too dishonest to acknowledge it.
I know !. This is what we really want to look at.
you are not claiming co2 makes ocean temps go up are you?
just look at the data - we just presented it to you.
change in ocean temps leads co2 levels. Correct?
you can download the data your self an run a cycle analysis. compare peak to peak and trough to trough.
just look at the data - we just presented it to you.
change in ocean temps leads co2 levels. Correct?
you can download the data your self an run a cycle analysis. compare peak to peak and trough to trough.
Quote from futurecurrents:
I know !. This is what we really want to look at.
more lies from the troll. don't you even bother to google before you lie.
1. the paper was published in Global and Planetary Change.
2. you lie your ass of again.. you showed us a chart of co2 and pretending you though it showed a lead lag relationship.... but when we break down the data month by month we co2 lags temperature change by 9 to 12 months.
This is not even an issue every agw nutter scientist now knows this.
They are simply hoping to find another signal that is longer term than nine months to a year. but less than the signal in the ice core records.
Reread your bloggers post... he conceded the 9 months lag time... he was just arguing that there could be another cause.
1. the paper was published in Global and Planetary Change.
2. you lie your ass of again.. you showed us a chart of co2 and pretending you though it showed a lead lag relationship.... but when we break down the data month by month we co2 lags temperature change by 9 to 12 months.
This is not even an issue every agw nutter scientist now knows this.
They are simply hoping to find another signal that is longer term than nine months to a year. but less than the signal in the ice core records.
Reread your bloggers post... he conceded the 9 months lag time... he was just arguing that there could be another cause.
Just curious, as I am not keen on getting into a conversation on global warming (as i have no expertise on this topic and therefore cannot offer much) but don't you think that a 30 or so year change in temperatures in your chart is a bit, well, insignificant on a geological scale??
Not to mention the causation/correlation issues that chart leaves itself open to.
Maybe so, but geological time is not really our concern, imo, as "agricultural time". As I said before, worst case scenario would probably still have some humans around, living in small groups and eating insects if nothing else. But there would not be 7 billion humans--that takes grain. And the "transition" from 7 billion to 2 billion is probably not going to be pretty.
I think prudence is in order, I don't think we should just keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as if the entire issue is a complete unknown.
Here is a great review...
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11414-co2-follows-temperature-rises.html
In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).
And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."
So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?
Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?
Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "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 [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
...
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11414-co2-follows-temperature-rises.html
In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).
And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."
So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?
Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?
Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "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 [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
...
