Mann’s Hockey Stick shows that temperatures have risen about half a degree over the last 1000 years. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that he is correct.
Ice core data shows that temperatures regularly vary by about 12C, and that current CO2 levels are unprecedented for hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
Given the massive growth of CO2, one might expect to see a huge increase in temperatures. The graph below overlays Mann’s hockey stick on the Vostok ice core data.
The hockey stick (inside the red circle on the right side) is essentially invisible, because it is completely within the noise of natural variability. Michael Mann has shown us that CO2 sensitivity is extremely low.
But it is worse than it seems. At Vostok, temperatures have actually declined, while CO2 has risen 40%. Under Hansen’s forecasts, Vostok should have risen 3-5C by now.
So there you have it. Hansen, Mann and Rahmstorf have definitively debunked themselves.
arctic ice data co2 and warming
0.5°C over the last 1000 years? It’s Worse Than We Thought!®
The delusional dendrophrenology! What a work of fiction that was! But, yes, even if that fantasy work was correct, it shows that we’ve nothing to worry about. If anything, if there were any validity to the CO2 posit, we’ve delayed an impending ice age. So, to all the industrialists out there, I can only say, WELL DONE, LADS!
Clearly Homo Erectus must have had a lot of SUV’s in those days. Fortunately Neanderthal Man came along and imposed a carbon tax and saved the world for the poley bears and penguins.
Global warming is not due to greenhouse gases, its due to the earth’s orbit around the sun destabilizing, you have been lied too. Please read my blog at: orbital-decay1.blogspot.com.
Besides the above comments it is almost universal from start to finish that the red CO2 line rises after the blue temperature. This correlation alone for hundreds of thousands of years (not just seen here but elsewhere) ought to tell anyone with commonsense that CO2 appears to be released after the natural and regular warming cycles.
The recent rise (for they will point it out if I don’t) is a new phenomenon. Without which hardly a climatologist or meteorologist worldwide would have drawn attention to the current figures of temperature and related changes. But we’ve had 150 years already to see the effects, compared with the known 1C potential for a doubling plus possible feedback. Any experiment relies most on observation before a theory is made. I observe that in 150 years the blue line has continued its up and down cycle, and when CO2 shoots up it is not affected. Without a second earth with normal levels of CO2 we can never know, but could easily have reached the 0.8C rise without the CO2 increasing as it is so slight not to be significant enough to require an analysis without the strange arrival of the CO2.
But our likely conclusion, being half way through the IPCC’s experiment, we have a rise of no more than maybe 0.5C on a rising trend to mop up the rest at the very least, and as no paper I have come across (I’m not in the field but read as much as I can) has proposed positive feedback from evaporating seas will have a delay built in. If you see a puddle on a warm day after the sun comes out how long does it take for the sun to evaporate it? Is there a period where it stays there and then after a specific time in relation to the amount of water then begin to vanish? No. I only studied physics till 16 but pretty sure Newton’s laws didn’t allow for a delay without something blocking the heat from reaching the puddle.
So basically there has been no feedback (fact, based on observation), and no equations or explanation why such feedback (ie James Hansen’s otherwise unknown theory of a tipping point) would be delayed. Therefore, as the IPCC’s total existence is based on a theory which breaches the law of conservation of energy and matter (if we could create a few degrees C excess simply by filling a room with more CO2 and methane at a safe human level I think the heating industry would have caught on by now) and as a result amazes me no one has totally undone it who is both qualified to do it and can provide the mathematical proofs.
I’m sure half the readers here could do it, I have found the flaws, but am not able to provide the definitive figures to confirm them in order to get Hansen’s degree ripped up and fed to him with vinegar.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfmFuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9.
Sorry, that’s either private or gone already. If you can still get in could you copy and paste the relevant parts back here? Thanks.
If it’s the Minority Report I’ve found it.