Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature

1.....On a small time scale NO, (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C:.

http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

2.....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time scales well:

http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

3.....On a long time scale, (NO) (millions of years)

http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

wow, it's not like this guy hasn't got access to the resources needed to more inform himself ....

Well sad Ajax. There seems to be a few useful idiots to the cause represented here, they'll distract and try to bog you down in nonsense circular arguments.

Stock in trade from the Al Gore school for obfuscation.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

wow, it's not like this guy hasn't got access to the resources needed to more inform himself ....

Today we have some of the lowest temperatures and CO2 levels in our history.................FACT!

Whats all the fuss about.........?

Rider wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

Well sad Ajax. There seems to be a few useful idiots to the cause represented here, they'll distract and try to bog you down in nonsense circular arguments. Stock in trade from the Al Gore school for obfuscation.

Going all out on the syllables there ay bro: must be good crack daddy let you smoke this weekend to spread the costello mystique!

  :D :D

Did he give you the usual prawns and crayfish to draw your mates in with that??

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 3:17pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7th, 2013 at 12:56pm: wow, it's not like this guy hasn't got access to the resources needed to more inform himself .... Today we have some of the lowest temperatures and CO2 levels in our history.................FACT! Whats all the fuss about.........?

Okeley dokeley: firstly, temperature does not equal heat content!!

Secondly, you're still a joke no matter which terms you try to abuse!!

All energy ends up as heat and if you're injecting chemical energy into a sytem and burning it shite happens!! You're only argument can be that the resulting CO2 from combusting the injected chemical energy rejects the suns energy which it doesn't!

Sweet dreams whilst your eyes can't stop jiggling from the crack  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

** oh, yeh: I almost forgot==>> GO MURDOCHS COPPER INTERNET SOLUTION FOR THE CLEVER COUNTRY THAT BUILT CHINA BUT APPARENTLY DOESN'T WANT TO BE THE WORLDS GLOBAL LAUGHING STOCK THANKS TO ITS FRAUDULENT CONSERVATIVE read globalist UPPER MIDDLE CLASS TRYHARD BRIGADE!!
  :-* :-*

That first graph shows a δ18O graph against time for GISP2 in Greenland (Air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet !), compared against an atmospheric CO2 from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica. Apart from the regional differences and the fact that the measurement was of local air temperatures, a δ18O measurement is less accurate that a Deuterium proxy, since the D proxy is measured on the ice, and the δ18O on the tiny air bubbles. Carrying out δ18O isotopic analysis on such a small sample increases the error level, not to mention the regional variation (geographically about as far as you can get). Watt's up with that?  ;D  Even Dodgy Dave Evans' trick of ignoring 85% of the ocean heat data is eclipsed by such blatant dodginess. He is not worthy.   

A total variation in CO2 of 20ppm over the range 260-280 ppm is likely to be associated with a temperature difference (Mean Global Surface) of about 0.1 degrees and that would be swamped by other forcings. In other words, nobody in their right minds would expect much of a correlation. It's another strawman.

It's like comparing apples with pears - in the case of Watts, deliberately.


On the second graph, you seem to have dropped the strawman for a moment.

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us. However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature. The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

Good. That's mainstream Climatology. You have accurately represented it.

The vast majority of the best qualified say so, it seems. As far as I know, they're supported by rigorous peer review.

What are your qualifications? Link to a few of your peer-reviewed papers.

As for the last Graph in the original post, the Atmospheric CO2 that appears to peak at 7000ppm in the Cambrian period is based on the Geocarb III model (Berner, 2004). Any modelling of Paleozoic CO2 is problematic and based on very sparse and unreliable data. There are two other studies commonly cited for this period, these being Rothman (2002) and Royer et al (2004).  For that peak at 7000ppm,  the other studies show CO2 concentrations much lower - around 500ppm.

It's a bit of a circular argument on your part to use these models anyway, because they all rely on atmospheric physics and generally accepted climate sensitivities.

Ironically the Royer et al poster is titled "CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate"

By the way, life in the Cambrian period was totally different to life today. Most life existed in the oceans, and there were also primitive one celled organisms that lived under the earth.

So it's immaterial what the temperatures and CO2 levels were at that that time, because it was a totally different and hostile land environment. 

# wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

The vast majority of the best qualified say so, it seems. As far as I know, they're supported by rigorous peer review. What are your qualifications? Link to a few of your peer-reviewed papers.

My qualifications are in Environmental Science, so I have at least studied Atmospheric Science and General Circulation Models as part of that.

I'm just pointing out that our friend is pushing this strawman, but  has quite happily revealed through the vagaries of cut and paste no doubt,  that he "knows" the explanation anyway.

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 2:07pm: The vast majority of the best qualified say so, it seems. As far as I know, they're supported by rigorous peer review. What are your qualifications? Link to a few of your peer-reviewed papers. My qualifications are in Environmental Science, so I have at least studied Atmospheric Science and general circulation models as part of that. I'm just pointing out that our friend is pushing this strawman, but  has quite happily revealed through the vagaries of cut and paste no doubt,  that he "knows" the explanation anyway.

Muso, I hope you don't think that question was directed at you. If I've caused any confusion or offence, I apologise.

Even if it was, you're quite right to ask. No offense taken.

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

# wrote on Aug 12th, 2013 at 2:07pm: The vast majority of the best qualified say so, it seems. As far as I know, they're supported by rigorous peer review. What are your qualifications? Link to a few of your peer-reviewed papers. My qualifications are in Environmental Science, so I have at least studied Atmospheric Science and General Circulation Models as part of that. I'm just pointing out that our friend is pushing this strawman, but  has quite happily revealed through the vagaries of cut and paste no doubt,  that he "knows" the explanation anyway.

Well then as you can see all those graphs are the graphs that both sides use.

Any excuse to justify the AGW religion.

And your a scientist...???

What I don't understand is how you can post this:


Quote:

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us. However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature. The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

- and then talk about correlation between temperature and CO2. You already stated that the glaciations were initiated by changing orbit (not CO2 release) and then the temperature change is amplified by CO2 release or take up.

In fact the CO2 accounts for about 40% of the warming.

Do you genuinely not understand the incongruity of your statements, or are you just jumping on the denialist bandwagon?

You just stated that there is an 800 year gap (partially true), and then gave a perfectly good explanation. You saved me the trouble.

Ajax wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

Well then as you can see all those graphs are the graphs that both sides use.

The problem is not with the graphs, but the interpretation by Anthony Watts. Read the post carefully. 

Air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet compared against data from Law Dome? I don't think so.

This may come as a revelation to you, but there are other forcings apart from CO2.

Let's say I was feeling hot, so I switched off my reverse cycle heating in the house, and the house continued to warm, would I be justified in saying that there is no correlation between the  heating and the temperature of the house?

It's similar to the argument you are making. OK, maybe I had the oven on. Maybe it was a hot day outside. There are other causes of that heating.

In the same way, looking at paleo temperatures and saying that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature borders on ridiculous. You already stated that you knew that orbital variations were the main drivers of glaciations. Didn't you?

Who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

Interpretation of statistics is quite a skill.

It's all about measurment?

What to measure? How to measure it? How accurate is the measurement? What is the measurement tellig us?

For example: temperature measures what?? Temperature is an idicator of the heat content of a system!

ajax is a junior chewing up the worlds entire internet address space for daddys prawns and crayfish: when he grows up daddy will give him the spare rental to smoke crack in and sell enough to pay off that spare rental for daddykins and the joke continues ad infinitum!

VOTE MURDOCH TODAY- YA KNOW YA DON'T BELIEVE IN BORDERS... JUST (UNLIMITED,  ::) ::)  :D ) MATHEMATICAL DREAMS OF INFINITE EXPONENTIAL zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  :o :o

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzz...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:

Interpretation of statistics is quite a skill. It's all about measurment? What to measure? How to measure it? How accurate is the measurement? What is the measurement tellig us? For example: temperature measures what?? Temperature is an idicator of the heat content of a system! ajax is a junior chewing up the worlds entire internet address space for daddys prawns and crayfish: when he grows up daddy will give him the spare rental to smoke crack in and sell enough to pay off that spare rental for daddykins and the joke continues ad infinitum! VOTE MURDOCH TODAY- YA KNOW YA DON'T BELIEVE IN BORDERS... JUST (UNLIMITED,  ::) ::)  :D ) MATHEMATICAL DREAMS OF INFINITE EXPONENTIAL zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  :o :o zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz...

There has been no warming since 1998, I know it, you know it and the majority of Australians know it.

That's why we are going to kick this labor green government out on its arse.

For lieing to us about not introducing a carbon tax and then that the science is settled.

Ajax wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

... There has been no warming since 1998, I know it, you know it and the majority of Australians know it. ...

Assertion does not evidence make. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified
scientists say.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified scientists say.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 4:03pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:58pm: And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified scientists say. ... --Goering

Trolling, Greggery?

Godwin's law is invoked.  Looks like you lose.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:03pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:58pm: And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified scientists say. ... --Goering Trolling, Greggery? Godwin's law is invoked.  Looks like you lose.

Difficult to read, was it?

I thought it might be.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:03pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 3:58pm: And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified scientists say. ... --Goering Trolling, Greggery? Godwin's law is invoked.  Looks like you lose. Difficult to read, was it? I thought it might be.

You thought wrong. I'm quite familiar with the quote.

You merely deny anything that's inconsistent with your beliefs. I see two possibilities.

If you're genuine, then you're insane. If you're not genuine, then you're trolling.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

I see two possibilities.

Only two?

More short-sightedness    ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:35pm: I see two possibilities. Only two? More short-sightedness    ::)

You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 6:34pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:35pm: I see two possibilities. Only two? More short-sightedness    ::) You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling.

Outstanding comeback.

"I'm losing the argument and can't think of anything worthwhile to say, so I'll call him a troll".

Future generations will cherish your post.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 7:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 6:34pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 4:35pm: I see two possibilities. Only two? More short-sightedness    ::) You do realise that your post is consistent with trolling. Outstanding comeback. "I'm losing the argument and can't think of anything worthwhile to say, so I'll call him a troll". Future generations will cherish your post.

And your substantiation is?

Denial and assertion don't win arguments. Smartarse comments tend to prove trolling.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:12pm: ... There has been no warming since 1998, I know it, you know it and the majority of Australians know it. ... Assertion does not evidence make. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm And no, the majority of Australians accept what the majority of the best qualified scientists say.

The majority of Australians do understand what the AGW religion is all about.

And we will show the world what exactly we think about the greatest LIE ever told to humanity on the 7th Sep 2013.

# wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

Denial and assertion don't win arguments.

What is it I'm denying?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying?

You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

Are you accusing me of denying something?

If so, what is it?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

# wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Are you accusing me of denying something? If so, what is it?

See the history. You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:35pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Are you accusing me of denying something? If so, what is it? See the history.

Just as I thought.  Nothing.

Another lying troll exposed.

Next!

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

# wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:35pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Are you accusing me of denying something? If so, what is it? See the history. ... Another lying troll exposed. Next!

You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:55pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:35pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Are you accusing me of denying something? If so, what is it? See the history. ... Another lying troll exposed. Next! You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

Too late sonny.

You've been exposed as a lying troll.

And not a very good one at that.

If you want to tell lies young boy, at least have the balls to back them up with something.

This is where you come back with the puerile  "You do realise ... " nonsense.    ;)

Over to you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

# wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:57pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:55pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:35pm: # wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:27pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 1:18pm: # wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying? You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Are you accusing me of denying something? If so, what is it? See the history. ... Another lying troll exposed. Next! You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you? Too late sonny. ...

You do realise that your response is consistent with trolling, don't you?

If your behaviour doesn't change, why should my response? Even cut & paste is more than you're worth.

Ajax wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

... There has been no warming since 1998, I know it, you know it and the majority of Australians know it. ...

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

# wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 8:12pm: Denial and assertion don't win arguments. What is it I'm denying?

What makes you think that I was referring to you?

But now that you mention it:

# wrote on Aug 10^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

# wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 4:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 3:29pm: # wrote on Aug 9th, 2013 at 1:32pm: ... Bearing in mind that the vast majority of the best qualified hold a consistent position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, what are your qualifications for denying that there is "enough reliable, credible evidence to support it"? Is your position scepticism or denial? Scepticism. As I've already explained to you, I am completely open-minded: AGW may indeed be happening. Considering the evidence available at the moment though, I remain sceptical. So what is your rationale for denying the credibility of the evidence upon which the vast majority of the best qualified rely? From your failure to respond, I infer that you have no rational basis for your denial. Given that scepticism is a rational philosophy, if your denial has no rational basis, is it scepticism? If your denial is not scepticism, are you a genuine sceptic? You can easily establish your credibility by detailing your rationale. If you can't do that, then you might do yourself a favour by examining the reasons for your faith in a belief system that is not supported by the vast majority of the best qualified.

The invitation was repeated at least a couple of times:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/31#31
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365821673/33#33
You repeatedly failed to detail a rational basis for your denial. Your behaviour therefore doesn't qualify as scepticism.

Forum software records your history. Irritating, isn't it?

This thread seems to be getting nowhere.  Let's keep to the subject rather than repeated accusations of trolling.

muso wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

This thread seems to be getting nowhere.  Let's keep to the subject rather than repeated accusations of trolling.

Exactly muso,

There is no correlation between CO2 & temperature.

History proves that.

CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.

Case closed.

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

muso wrote on Aug 25th, 2013 at 10:44am: This thread seems to be getting nowhere.  Let's keep to the subject rather than repeated accusations of trolling. Exactly muso, There is no correlation between CO2 & temperature. History proves that. CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. Case closed.

Strawman alert. Read what I said on the other threads.

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

There is no correlation between CO2 & temperature.

Don't be silly

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.preview.jpg

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:41pm: There is no correlation between CO2 & temperature. Don't be silly http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.preview.jpg

Once again a scale of about 400,000 years.

The only scale that might suggest some sort of correlation.

Your alarmist shenanigans have been explained at the OP of this thread.

Right here
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375834924

Read through the thread and you'll see that these arguments have been shown to be simplistic strawmen.

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Read through the thread and you'll see that these arguments have been shown to be simplistic strawmen.

The sceptics are a militant 'hearts and minds' spam lobby, who think that by having the last word or endlessly producing disingenuous data interpretations that they can sway the 'fence sitters' into buying a few more years of business as usual.

smacking despicable frauds.

Of course the whole process is poisoned by the mechanics of debate. What we really need is to be able to go back, once someone has been shown to have been disingenuous and treat every statement they have made up to that point as suspect and no longer worthy of regard. If they can keep coming back again and again with more and more lies, with no consequences, the process is broken and you are singing to their tune in their propaganda show.

On the other hand, he has been given plenty of rope, which he has used quite appropriately.

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Read through the thread and you'll see that these arguments have been shown to be simplistic strawmen.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?


1.....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)


Quote:

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2rykqhk.gif


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

2.....On a medium time scale YES...????, (450,000 years)

(NO), It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.


Quote:

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time scales well:

http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/


Quote:

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right. It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2. It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us. However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature. The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect. This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure. http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

3.....On a long time scale (NO), (millions of years)

http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

... and the responses?

Look at the OP of this thread...???

CO2 and temperature don't correlate..???

Case closed.....!!!

Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 10:03am:

... CO2 and temperature don't correlate..??? ...

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems. Perhaps you're missing something.

# wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 4:03pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 10:03am: ... CO2 and temperature don't correlate..??? ... The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems. Perhaps you're missing something.

Show me where CO2 & temperature correlate through our history.......??????

Ajax wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 5:36pm:

Show me where CO2 & temperature correlate through our history.......??????

CO2 green line derived from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). CO2 blue line measured at Mauna Loa (NOAA). Global temperature anomaly (GISS)

Correlation coefficient : +0.86.  (That's a strong correlation)

OK? Case closed. (See, I can say that too)

---

Hey muso are you here to debate global warming...?

OR

Are you here to push the AGW religion on to the unsuspecting...???

Which one is dude........????

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature...!!!
http://i41.tinypic.com/2yo301v.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2rdiuiw.jpg

Case Closed

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:08am:

... There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature...!!!

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems.


Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:08am:

... Case Closed

Temper, temper!

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:08am:

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature...!!!

So you are claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse house

---

Ajax wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 11:08am:

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature...!!!

Do you understand the term correlation?
Do you understand correlation coefficient?
The correlation coefficient is 0.86 for the data I presented. It looks very similar to  the data you presented. That's a strong correlation for a natural system.

The strongest correlation is in the last 50 years.

There is also a correlation when it comes to major events such as glaciations.  In those cases, the variation in solar irradiance  due to teh changing orbit of the Earth gives rise to heating and cooling, which releases CO2 from the biosphere.  Then there is additional heating from the CO2 that is released.

There is not only correlation, there is causation. 

Hadcrut 3v is an obsolete dataset.

I don't think you're a very technical person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0

muso wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:17am:

Do you understand the term correlation? Do you understand correlation coefficient? The correlation coefficient is 0.86 for the data I presented. It looks very similar to  the data you presented. That's a strong correlation for a natural system. The strongest correlation is in the last 50 years. There is also a correlation when it comes to major events such as glaciations.  In those cases, the variation in solar irradiance  due to teh changing orbit of the Earth gives rise to heating and cooling, which releases CO2 from the biosphere.  Then there is additional heating from the CO2 that is released. There is not only correlation, there is causation.  Hadcrut 3v is an obsolete dataset. I don't think you're a very technical person.

Where is your proof.......???

I have shown you that CO2 & temperature don't correlate not in short time span not in a long time span.

In a medium time span they look as though they do, but they don't its just the scale we're zoomed out at.

Isn't funny that all the global warming alarmist blogs and sites use these medium time span chart to show the correlation.

That's why most people are going to give AGW the BOOT.

They're sick and tired of being presented with cheery picked information to suit the AGW cause instead of getting the whole picture.

There on to it, which means your religion is headed for the dust bin where it belongs.

Ajax wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 1:52pm:

muso wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:17am: I don't think you're a very technical person. Where is your proof.......??? I have shown you that CO2 & temperature don't correlate not in short time span not in a long time span.

Your lack of ability with simple arithmetic and the fact that you don't understand the concept of correlation.

Oh, and let's not forget your predilection for ignoring the totality of the data by focusing on cherry-picked periods of time too short to rise to the level of statistical significance.

Then there was this article. You swallowed it hook line and sinker as did the webmaster. It sailed right over your head that this was a very funny and carefully scripted parody of climate change denialism. It just demonstrates that you will swallow any piece of nonsense to further your anti-scientific advocacy.


Quote:

University Of Colorado Radar Altimetry Is Pretty Much Useless For Measuring Sea Level Satellite Measured Sea Level Is Measuring Ocean Heat By Ed Caryl Sometime in the last year, someone commented in some article that sea level rise as observed by satellite radar altimetry was overstated due to the fact that as warm water expands, it gets lighter, gravity has less pull on it, and it bulges up. Since then, a couple of global maps have come to my attention. First, a map of sea level rise.

That about sums up my proof that you're not a very technical person.

muso wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 3:43pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 1:52pm: muso wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 10:17am: I don't think you're a very technical person. Where is your proof.......??? I have shown you that CO2 & temperature don't correlate not in short time span not in a long time span. Your lack of ability with simple arithmetic and the fact that you don't understand the concept of correlation. Oh, and let's not forget your predilection for ignoring the totality of the data by focusing on cherry-picked periods of time too short to rise to the level of statistical significance. Then there was this article. You swallowed it hook line and sinker as did the webmaster. It sailed right over your head that this was a very funny and carefully scripted parody of climate change denialism. It just demonstrates that you will swallow any piece of nonsense to further your anti-scientific advocacy. Quote: University Of Colorado Radar Altimetry Is Pretty Much Useless For Measuring Sea Level Satellite Measured Sea Level Is Measuring Ocean Heat By Ed Caryl Sometime in the last year, someone commented in some article that sea level rise as observed by satellite radar altimetry was overstated due to the fact that as warm water expands, it gets lighter, gravity has less pull on it, and it bulges up. Since then, a couple of global maps have come to my attention. First, a map of sea level rise. That about sums up my proof that you're not a very technical person.

The only things your posts sum up are that you in now way will accept that the warming in the last 100 years can be attributed to anything else but MANMADE CO2.

With such a narrow & biased perspective you really do miss out on the overall picture dude.

I thought closed minds where for the uneducated.

How wrong was I........................!!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

... The only things your posts sum up are that you in now way will accept that the warming in the last 100 years can be attributed to anything else but MANMADE CO2. ...

Ajax, in principle, all things are possible.

Now all you need to do is get the vast majority of the best qualified to share your faith.

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 12:03pm: ... The only things your posts sum up are that you in now way will accept that the warming in the last 100 years can be attributed to anything else but MANMADE CO2. ... Ajax, in principle, all things are possible. Now all you need to do is get the vast majority of the best qualified to share your faith.

Please.....you keep quoting the sceptical science blog run by John Cook who couldn't even get the consensus on global warming right.....???

Simon says put your hand on your...xxxx...and start.......... :-*

Ok simple Simon. Let's continue here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378457001

You still haven't shown that you understand correlations and correlation coefficients.