Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

[Sunsettommy]

Comment at Watts Up With That?

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Allan MacRae

April 20, 2022

Excerpt:

(MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.

IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.

LINK

=====

Lot more in the link

 

[Donald H]

Comment at Watts Up With That?

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Allan MacRae

April 20, 2022

Excerpt:

(MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.

IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.

LINK

=====

Lot more in the link

It's enough to just acknowledge temperature changes.

Otherwise, without a peer reviewed opinion by climate scientists, it's just a 'chicken or the egg' question.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's enough to just acknowledge temperature changes.

Otherwise, without a peer reviewed opinion by climate scientists, it's just a 'chicken or the egg' question.

Thank you for admitting you have no counterpoint to offer against the article which clearly states that CO2 change isn't driving temperature change.

Post one remains unchallenged

Cheers.

 

[Calypso Jones]

 

[Donald H]

Thank you for admitting you have no counterpoint to offer against the article which clearly states that CO2 change isn't driving temperature change.

No, it doesn't say that. There was climate change before temp change and temp change before climate change. The chicken or the egg.

Get some evidence and see me tomorrow maybe.

 

[Ghost1776]

Comment at Watts Up With That?

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Allan MacRae

April 20, 2022

Excerpt:

(MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.

IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.

LINK

=====

Lot more in the link

I wonder why the CO2 freaks seem not to die from CO2 when they drink it. Oh how silly it just feeds the trees and the planets the oxgyen we and plants, oh and the animals need to live.

Those who support ths bs of taking carbon out are flippen ass morons.

 

[Ghost1776]

View attachment 633672

Build back better won’t make sense to these freaks until they’re actually living it. They have no idea how clos it is do they LOL.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I wonder why the CO2 freaks seem not to die from CO2 when they drink it. Oh how silly it just feeds the trees and the planets the oxgyen we and plants, oh and the animals need to live.

Those who support ths bs of taking carbon out are flippen ass morons.

I see many of them victims of media brainwashing some are just built in stupid from day one.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Earth's rotation, tilt and orbit affects the climate.
There is nothing we can do about it.
Taxes and regulations cannot change it.
However, Climate Change FEEEEAAAAR can be used as a political tool to scare people into accepting the yoke of socialism.

 

[ReinyDays]

Comment at Watts Up With That?

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Allan MacRae

April 20, 2022

Excerpt:

(MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.

IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.

LINK

=====

Lot more in the link

Your link doesn't provide any data in the 1,000 to 10,000,000 year time intervals ... obviously without this data, your claim cannot be evaluated ...

Also ... what theory are you relying on? ... why do carbon dioxide levels follow temperature? ... don't bother with statistics, I want you to tell me what physically is happening to cause one to follow the other ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your link doesn't provide any data in the 1,000 to 10,000,000 year time intervals ... obviously without this data, your claim cannot be evaluated ...

Also ... what theory are you relying on? ... why do carbon dioxide levels follow temperature? ... don't bother with statistics, I want you to tell me what physically is happening to cause one to follow the other ...

All the data sources for the McRae paper is on page 8 Humlum you have to purchase the PDF and Kuo through a purchase in Nature publication to get full access.

You don't know about the basic claims of CO2 change following temperature change after all these years, really you are that unaware?

There are papers published since the 1990's showing significant lags of CO2 behind Temperature changes.

This should help you catch up,

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

There are 6 published papers in the link to refer.

 

[ReinyDays]

You don't know about the basic claims of CO2 change following temperature change after all these years, really you are that unaware?

No ... I've never seen this presented ... if temperature increases, then what causes CO2 to rise? ... and what experiment can we conduct to verify this theory? ...

Your link to Joanne's site doesn't have this information ... and Joanne's site isn't scientific ... just statistical lies ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

No ... I've never seen this presented ... if temperature increases, then what causes CO2 to rise? ... and what experiment can we conduct to verify this theory? ...

Your link to Joanne's site doesn't have this information ... and Joanne's site isn't scientific ... just statistical lies ...

Yeah you just ignored the data and the charts which are 100% based on the Petit et al1999 data (sourced in the link) and you seems to have ignored other papers as well.

You are years behind on this take your time and read up on it not going to do your homework for you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah you just ignored the data and the charts which are 100% based on the Petit et al1999 data (sourced in the link) and you seems to have ignored other papers as well.

You are years behind on this take your time and read up on it not going to do your homework for you.

I'm looking at Petit 1999 ... where does it show carbon dioxide rising due to a temperature increase 800 years prior ...

You have no theory to explain why carbon dioxide follows temperature ... you're relying on voodoo or something? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm looking at Petit 1999 ... where does it show carbon dioxide rising due to a temperature increase 800 years prior ...

You have no theory to explain why carbon dioxide follows temperature ... you're relying on voodoo or something? ...

You are ignoring a lot of research (paywall) which is why you are asking ME instead..... that is funny because the controversy over this died down years ago since the very notion of CO2 oscillating during the year is lagging behind temperature change is easily observed.

It was FIRST noticed by Callendar was back in the 1930's only 90 years ago and confirmed by Mauna Loa data showing the yearly zig zag pattern of CO2 that follows temperature change and the observed increased MONTHLY CO2 outflows when a large El-Nino phase is running and observed decreased outflow when La-Nina is in place which over and over indicate that it is the change in temperature that influence the CO2 outflow rate.

You are the one who needs to catch up here.

 

[ReinyDays]

It was FIRST noticed by Callendar was back in the 1930's only 90 years ago and confirmed by Mauna Loa data showing the yearly zig zag pattern of CO2 that follows temperature change and the observed increased MONTHLY CO2 outflows when a large El-Nino phase is running and observed decreased outflow when La-Nina is in place which over and over indicate that it is the change in temperature that influence the CO2 outflow rate.

You are the one who needs to catch up here.

Did you really say "zig-zag pattern"? ... too funny ... do you mean seasonal changes? ... yes, not just seasons but we also average out day/night cycles ... I guess it's lost to you but `CO2 following temperature` is only true for one hemisphere, it would be the opposite for the other hemisphere ... when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter in the Southern ... the opposite ... ask ding why it's not a mirror image ... anyway, might want to fix your statistical rhetoric ...

If your theory is behind a paywall, I do expect you to at least lay down the basic ideas ... and I think this is because there is no theory, this is just statistical monkey-work ... and not very good statistical monkey-work ... [giggle] ... and I do expect your theory ... [chorkle] ... to be as sound as AGW Theory ... [crash, boom, writhing on the ground laughing] ...

What temperature spike 800 years ago caused today's CO2 spike? ...

 

[abu afak]

Comment at Watts Up With That?

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

Allan MacRae

April 20, 2022

Excerpt:

(MacRae 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion. Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature.

IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would LEAD temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes LAG temperature changes.

LINK

=====

Lot more in the link

That HAS been true in every past cycle BUT...
It's certainly NOT true with the current cycle since Humans have exploded CO2 (and other GHGs) near 50% in the last 100+ years. (280 PPM to 410 PPM)
Temperature is lagging it/catching up as we speak.

And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT) that CO2 (CH4, other GHGs too) both initially lag and then contribute to/Exacerbate GW.

Usually in the natural cycle, it's the sun Solar forcing due to earth/orbital tilt etc, starts and then CO2 not only follows but adds with it's (Duh) GREENHOUSE GAS Effect.

But in our present Industrial Revolution case, we Are Leading with CO2/GHGs, which Alone Can cause warming.

***Scientists have measured Radiation-in/Radiation-out.
In the present case Radiation-in has NOT changed. (not solar forcing/orbital anomaly)
But Radiation-out is Being Blocked by our increasingly thick GHG blanket, and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHGs.
THAT's one Big reason we know it's AGW.***

See my OP:

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

The OP is a Conspiracy theorist and gets most of his material from WUWT (the 'Infowars' of Climate change) (or 911-Truth site equivalent) where he's told us he is a moderator. (enforcer)

Watts Up With That, aka, LOLWUWT and WTFUWT

A joke of a website posted here INCESSANTLY. Anthony Watts - RationalWiki Willard Anthony Watts is a former Radio and TV Weatherman and notable global warming Denier...He is the proprietor of the Jerry Seinfeldian Watts Up With That (geddit?) blog, usually shortened to WUWT or, as it is...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Did you really say "zig-zag pattern"? ... too funny ... do you mean seasonal changes? ... yes, not just seasons but we also average out day/night cycles ... I guess it's lost to you but `CO2 following temperature` is only true for one hemisphere, it would be the opposite for the other hemisphere ... when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter in the Southern ... the opposite ... ask ding why it's not a mirror image ... anyway, might want to fix your statistical rhetoric ...

If your theory is behind a paywall, I do expect you to at least lay down the basic ideas ... and I think this is because there is no theory, this is just statistical monkey-work ... and not very good statistical monkey-work ... [giggle] ... and I do expect your theory ... [chorkle] ... to be as sound as AGW Theory ... [crash, boom, writhing on the ground laughing] ...

What temperature spike 800 years ago caused today's CO2 spike? ...

It isn't my "theory" you idiot! it is from all those papers you didn't read not even the full access paper you ignored which explains the shifts in the patterns.

You have now spent more time begging me to do your homework than to just do it yourself you have no excuse for your being lazy.

 

[toobfreak]

Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

I've had it with CO2. To be more precise, recently I was watching some science program on PBS or a news story, and TWICE they mentioned CO2 as a POLLUTANT.

As if not for man, there would be (and should be) none.

Sometimes the Left are so full of it I want to scream. I pray for the time when viewers are given a big red button to press that sends an electric shock back to the programmer for every time they are caught BSing and offending their viewership.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That HAS been true in every past cycle BUT...
It's certainly NOT true with the current cycle since Humans have exploded CO2 (and other GHGs) near 50% in the last 100+ years. (280 PPM to 410 PPM)
Temperature is lagging it/catching up as we speak.

And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT) that CO2 (CH4, other GHGs too) both initially lag and then contribute to/Exacerbate GW.

Usually in the natural cycle, it's the sun Solar forcing due to earth/orbital tilt etc, starts and then CO2 not only follows but adds with it's (Duh) GREENHOUSE GAS Effect.

But in our present Industrial Revolution case, we Are Leading with CO2/GHGs, which Alone Can cause warming.

***Scientists have measured Radiation-in/Radiation-out.
In the present case Radiation-in has NOT changed. (not solar forcing/orbital anomaly)
But Radiation-out is Being Blocked by our increasingly thick GHG blanket, and at the exact spectral wavelengths of those GHGs.
THAT's one Big reason we know it's AGW.***

See my OP:

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...

www.usmessageboard.com

The OP is a Conspiracy theorist and gets most of his material from WUWT (the 'Infowars' of Climate change) (or 911-Truth site equivalent) where he's told us he is a moderator. (enforcer)

Watts Up With That, aka, LOLWUWT and WTFUWT

A joke of a website posted here INCESSANTLY. Anthony Watts - RationalWiki Willard Anthony Watts is a former Radio and TV Weatherman and notable global warming Denier...He is the proprietor of the Jerry Seinfeldian Watts Up With That (geddit?) blog, usually shortened to WUWT or, as it is...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

Sigh how many times do I have to tell YOU and other Warmist/alarmists that I have long ago agreed that CO2 absorbs IR that it has some warm forcing effect that there is a warming trend since the 1690's the beginning of the end of the LIA time and that humans contribute to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The problem YOU and other warmist/alarmists have is that the CO2 by itself has very little warm forcing effect left at the 430 ppm level thus very little postulated warming left for the future it is the POSITIVE Feedback Loop that is supposed to generate the large and rapid warming trend which never shows up and that YOU don't even talk about anymore because it isn't there!

Without that never seen Positive Feedback Loop there is very little warm forcing to be had thus NO climate emergency is building into the future which is why I oppose you and others so much since you don't have shit to run for your climate delusions.

Abu writes,

"And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT) that CO2 (CH4, other GHGs too) both initially lag and then contribute to/Exacerbate GW."

I used to be on warmist/alarmists website over this very thing and they NEVER back up this hilarious claim because there is nothing that exist but non falsifiable models which is why I regard warmists as being stupid as shit on it since how did it warm for hundreds of years without any help from a trace molecule that change very little in concentration in those same hundreds of years?

That is why I laugh when you believe in this bullshit!