http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
From 1910-1940, the Earth warmed at a rate of 1.6C per century. Since 1950, it has slowed to 1.2C per century. During the earlier warming, CO2 was below 320 PPM.
Observed warming clearly has little or nothing to do with CO2. Why do climate scientists keep lying about this?
If man-made CO2 had any effect on atmospheric CO2 then surely the industrialization and overall emissions went through the roof between ’33 and ’43??
If this doesn’t show clearly as a blip in the CO2 record then we must assume that the estimates for ocean out-gassing and volcanic seepage of CO2 are way too low and man’s efforts are insignificant.
Sandy Rham: Unfortunately, we don’t have good CO2 records from back then.
But it’s getting increasingly difficult for the alarmists to explain the lack of warming in the last decade – as Roy Spencer comments, if the current “anthropogenic forcings” were as strong as the alarmists claim, a decade of stalling temperatures is not easy to explain away (although they try to blame it on China).
The pre-war warming was real, the 1970-2000 warming is a fake, it doesn’t exist.
Singer has the arguments here:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/03/fred-singer-at-suppressed-seii-presentation-1976-to-2000-warming-thats-fake-it-doesnt-exist/
“Why do climate scientists keep lying about this?”
Because they morphed from climate scientists into climate activists.
Sandy,
You might want to listen to Murray Salby’s presentation on carbon dioxide.
http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/game-changer-for-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
So the second row of each entry is the % of the earth covered? In 2011 it’s 81-82% but in 1979 it was 88%.
In 1850 it was only 22%.
And we are supposed to extract global trends from this?
Yes because such extraction leads to the hockey sticks. If the extraction results has been otherwise, then the consensus would be attacking the quality of data. Depends on which way the tea leaves align