Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from jem:

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.
More...


Fuck you I have never lied about anything I have written about AGW. Never. So fuck you you fucking lying prick.

It does appear the paper is peer reviewed but with very lax criteria. I was wrong, not lying.

The paper is irrelevant, poorly done, the authors are hacks who have been previously debunked with prior bullshit papers they have written

And the paper is irrelevant. A red herring. Useless.

To try to correlate a change in CO2 when there is essentially no change in rates of CO2 gain year to year with air or sea temperature is absurd and looking for statiscal correlations that aren't there is what this paper is doing.

So of course it takes a prominent position on Watt's whoring website and you mindlessly slobber all over it.
 
Here is the first chart showing CO2 leading temperature as someone rational - leaves out jem - would expect since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As levels of a GHG go up if all else is equal, then we would expect temps to go up. It's simple logic which jem still does not understand.

Figure-2_with_model.jpg
 
Here is the second chart showing CO2 leading temps higher............ because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and rising levels will raise temperature also. But jem cannot understand how that could happen

from NOAA
global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
 
And yes CO2 can and usually HAS lagged temperatures because as temps rise CO2 out gasses from the oceans.

But in the past we were not dumping 9 billion tons of CO2 into the air from the burning of fossil fuels.
 
1. on your long term chart... we have seen past studies including the ones from agw nutters show the red line in your top graph leads the blue dots by 200 to 900 years.

2. with respect to recent years... we have seen if you go in and look at the monthly co2 data from noaa and the top accepted temperature data sets...

we see even in current times... temperature change leads co2 by 9 to 12 months.


So every data we have examined shows temperature leading co2.
 
I really need to point this out to you... in case you are so delusional you can't read a chart fc.

the red line is actual antarctic temps. it clearly leads the blue dots. even agw nutters admit that... even al gores guy at skeptical science admits that.

we have shown you many studies explaining this to you fc.

you must be a lying moron... to think you could find a long term chart which shows co2 leading temps.




Quote from futurecurrents:

Here is the first chart showing CO2 leading temperature as someone rational - leaves out jem - would expect since CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As levels of a GHG go up if all else is equal, then we would expect temps to go up. It's simple logic which jem still does not understand.

Figure-2_with_model.jpg
More...
 
here is the review again, in case you did not understand it the first time.

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."
... [/B][/QUOTE]
 
Quote from jem:

1. on your long term chart... we have seen past studies including the ones from agw nutters show the red line in your top graph leads the blue dots by 200 to 900 years.

2. with respect to recent years... we have seen if you go in and look at the monthly co2 data from noaa and the top accepted temperature data sets...

we see even in current times... temperature change leads co2 by 9 to 12 months.


So every data we have examined shows temperature leading co2.
More...

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
 
Quote from jem:

I really need to point this out to you... in case you are so delusional you can't read a chart fc.

the red line is actual antarctic temps. it clearly leads the blue dots. even agw nutters admit that... even al gores guy at skeptical science admits that.

we have shown you many studies explaining this to you fc.

you must be a lying moron... to think you could find a long term chart which shows co2 leading temps.
More...

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top