Icecap

[Wild Cobra]

Here is an article from the ICACAP webpage:

May 28, 2008

Correlation of Carbon Dioxide with Temperatures Negative Again



By Joseph D'Aleo, CCM

The temperatures over the last century correlated positively with carbon dioxide in the early 20th century but that warming was acknowledged even by the IPCC to be largely natural and minimally anthropogenic.

A negative correlation existed from the early 1930s to the late 1970s as temperatures cooled. This included three decades of the post war economic boom. A very strong positive correlation resumed after the Great Pacific Climate shift in the late 1970s. Data here is the USHCN Version 2.





After 1998, temperatures stopped rising and since 2002 have been falling now into the 7th year. Meanwhile CO2 has continued to rise (9.69 ppm or 2.6%) although the Mauna Loa surface data has actually paused this year with the La Nina inspired cooling. The monthly global data is plotted here for Hadley and UAH MSU along the monthly seasonally adjusted CO2 from NOAA ESRL for Mauna Loa. There is no smoothing here of the monthly data. The correlation (Pearson coefficient, r) for the Hadley and CO2 is now a negative (minus 0.4) and for the MSU UAH (minus 0.21). As we have noted, this MAY mark the start of another cooling interlude as predicted by the 60-70 year cycles of the PDO and AMO, and diminished solar.





The on again, off again nature of this correlation suggests that carbon dioxide is not the driving factor in our climate.


I know some of you will discount their work, especially those who demand peer review. However, the articles I read from them sure make sense.

Think about this. Why is there so much easily obtainable data on the subject of global warming temperature until 2004, and very little since. I say it's because the data no longer supports a warming trend, so the powers to be block it from public access.

[Snidely Whiplash]

No replies from the tree huggers......? :wah:

Shame on them.......

Guess it doesn't fit the agenda of doom and gloom, or benifit the spotted owl or striped gobbie fish struggling at the hands of human encroachment somewhere in the world..........

Do you people know that not a SINGLE computer model that is predicting "global warming doom and gloom in the next 50-100 yrs" has in it's prediction the lack of warming and some cooling of the past decade, or the dramatic cooling in the last year..? The computer models don't even have this in their reports....??????? WHY...? Unless they are gazes into a computer enhanced crystal ball, made up by the those who refuse to debate this climate change issue, even when as many as 31,000 scientists here in USA now are scoffing at the farse that the leftists like Al Gore and the other band of science guru's wanting to make a name for themselves are riding on, and won't debate anyone because they know they can't win the debate, so they keep they're mouths shut and hang on as long as the ride lasts, and fill they're pockets with as much of "you're" money as they can con from you, using your guilt and feelings to thier advantage.............

I truely hope that this fad ends soon, before our governments can do much more to take away our way of life and prosperity in the name of these wacko's and they're demented religion called global warming....... Oh, but now they have changed the name to fit the facts, it's now politically correctly called Climate change, so they can screw us whether it gets warmer or cooler...... Lol....





:)

[Wild Cobra]

Consider this also:



Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high. This shows highs to highs, and lows to lows, correlating to under 0.2 C increase over your coveted 100 years. Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier. That 0.1% increase may seem insignificant, but considering how cold the earth would be with no solar radiation, it amounts to over 0.2 C just by the increase in solar irradiation. Matches up pretty good to the 0.18 C trend when all averages are taken into account.

From NASA:

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;880398 wrote: Here is an article from the ICACAP webpage:

I know some of you will discount their work, especially those who demand peer review. However, the articles I read from them sure make sense.


It doesn't make sense to me to look at attribution of warming without looking also at internal climatic factors, plus volcanism and solar irradiance; as well as with all athropogenic factors including all greenhouse gasses, not just CO2, and (significantly for your charts that show cooling from the 30s to the 70s, the global dimming effect of aerosols).

Neither does it make sense to correlate the temperature increase with the greenhouse gas emissions of that year. The climate response to an increase in CO2 is spread over about a century, although most of it happens in about 50 years.

The correct way to test for the effect of humanity is to calculate as accurately as possible the effect of natural forcing only on the climate, and then calculate the forcing of natural plus anthropogenic forcing using the same system. Then you compare as see which one most closely resembles the measured temperatures.

Here's a peer reviewed one prepared earlier by Stott, P.A., et al., 2006: Transient climate simulations with the HadGEM1 model: causes of past warming and future climate change. J. Clim., 19, 2763–2782.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;881198 wrote: Notice that alarmists will pick a starting period of low temperature to today's relative high.
This is correct of them. The drop in temperature in the 60s was primarily attributable to aerosol forcing. With the various versions of the clean air act around the world as a response to the killing of large areas of boreal forest by acid rain, this cooling was ameliorated. In the new legal environment the post 1970 trend is the better predictor of coming climate.

Wild Cobra;881198 wrote: Now here's a kicker... Solar irradiance in now about 0.1% long term average higher now (after 1950) than 1900 and earlier.
Do you have a peer reviewed source for that?

I don't think that it is generally believed that the sun changes irradiance on a 100 year time scale.Indirect evidence has suggested that there may be changes in solar brightness, over periods of centuries, beyond changes associated with sunspot numbers. However, the authors conclude on theoretical grounds that these additional low-frequency changes are unlikely.

"There is no plausible physical cause for long-term changes in solar brightness other than changes caused by sunspots and faculae," says Wigley.



(Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming, ScienceDaily, Sep. 14, 2006)