Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

hey fc you ignorant troll read the last sentence...
of the quote below... do you understand...
co2 moves around... it just does not pop out next to the ice year.

are you really so stupid you do not understand the earths systems have variables.

you keep telling us you have a degree but you do not act like any scientist I know. no real scientist only spouts propaganda -- they have integrity and acknowledge both sides of the argument.

Where did you get your "science" degree anyway? al gore online college?





http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/



Ice cores and GEOCARB provide continuous long-term records; while plant stomata records are discontinuous and limited to fossil stomata that can be accurately aged and calibrated to extant plant taxa. GEOCARB yields a very low frequency record, ice cores have better resolution and stomata can yield very high frequency data. Modern CO2 levels are unspectacular according to GEOCARB, unprecedented according to the ice cores and not anomalous according to plant stomata. So which method provides the most accurate reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2?

The problems with the ice core data are 1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and 2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.

The age of the layers of ice can be fairly easily and accurately determined. The age of the air trapped in the ice is not so easily or accurately determined. Currently the most common method for aging the air is through the use of “firn densification models” (FDM). Firn is more dense than snow; but less dense than ice. As the layers of snow and ice are buried, they are compressed into firn and then ice. The depth at which the pore space in the firn closes off and traps gas can vary greatly… So the delta between the age of the ice and the ago of the air can vary from as little as 30 years to more than 2,000 years.

The EPICA C core has a delta of over 2,000 years. The pores don’t close off until a depth of 99 m, where the ice is 2,424 years old. According to the firn densification model, last year’s air is trapped at that depth in ice that was deposited over 2,000 years ago.
More...
 
jem you ignorant troll. Do you understand anything to do with science at all?

You keep flinging shit. Your aim sucks and your ammo smells.


Maybe this will jar something within the fetid inner recess of what you call a brain.


co2Graph11-cropped.jpg
 
oh shit... since temps and co2 track each other so closely it must be 120 degrees right now.

oh wait... its the other way around temps lead co2.



Quote from futurecurrents:

jem you ignorant troll. Do you understand anything to do with science at all?

You keep flinging shit. Your aim sucks and your ammo smells.


Maybe this will jar something within the fetid inner recess of what you call a brain.


co2Graph11-cropped.jpg
More...
 
I predicted you would attack watts instead of dealing with the scinece

Quote from futurecurrents:


Jem, Anthony Watts is a hack and a prostitute. He used to be a TV meteorologist. Like Al Roker. Maybe you like to get your science from Al Roker, but most people with a brain do not.

I prefer NASA and NOAA.
More...
 
you attacked watts instead of addressing this paper...
see this it shows even in the last 50 years.. co2 lags temps.

you are all out of bullshit fc... not a single one of you charts can show co2 leading temps... read this study.. you ignorant troll.



"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."

Quote from jem:

and before you try your leftist troll crap and bash the website instead of dealing with the science...


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.



See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
More...
 
Jem you ignorant douchebag. Of course CO2 leads temperatures. Because it is a greenhouse gas. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Rising CO2 leads temperatures higher. Always has, always will.


global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
 
here is a summary of the paper which proves you to be dead ass wrong.

co2 trails temps in the record... even the most crooked climate scientists admit co2 trails temps in the record.

in fact you did when you just tried to claim the relationship flipped a few posts back.

but you are so crooked you lie just a few posts later.

Quote from jem:


Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
Posted on August 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Fig. 1. Monthly global atmospheric CO2 (NOOA; green), monthly global sea surface temperature (HadSST2; blue stippled) and monthly global surface air temperature (HadCRUT3; red), since January 1980. Last month shown is December 2011.

Reposted from the Hockey Schtick, as I’m out of time and on the road.- Anthony
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds 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,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The highlights of the paper are:

► 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.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

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

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

The paper:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Ole Humluma, b,
Kjell Stordahlc,
Jan-Erik Solheimd

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
More...
 
Quote from jem:

and before you try your leftist troll crap and bash the website instead of dealing with the science...


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.



See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top