Global warming has no correlation to carbon dioxide levels

[kfrost06]

I attach the temperature graph for the last 10 years. There are two sets: the Hadley Centre's surface temperatures plotted in magenta (tending to be over-estimates and less reliable) and the MSU satellite temperature readings in blue. There is no correlation at all with the rising CO2, shown in green.

[ecto9]

The Earth goes thru cycles and has been for eons without mankind's influence... ecto9

[Act of God]

I attach the temperature graph for the last 10 years. There are two sets: the Hadley Centre's surface temperatures plotted in magenta (tending to be over-estimates and less reliable) and the MSU satellite temperature readings in blue. There is no correlation at all with the rising CO2, shown in green.

do you have a source for that graph?

[Kratos]

It depends who's making the graph, and what agenda they are pushing...I've read articles in a publication put out by MIT saying were already f-ed because there is a substantial lag between co2 levels and global warming...I've read about ice core samples that shows increases in co2 don't lead but lag behind stages of warming naturally...What I've concluded is that nobody knows, the planet gets colder, the planet gets hotter and nobody knows why it happens...The other thing I've decided is it doesn't matter much, were gonna burn that gas and oil till it's gone...It may take 50 years it may take 100, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter either way.

[SMCengineer]

All I have to say is that today it was in the 80's and if that's global warming than global warming is fvckin awesome!

[Kärnfysikern]

The time frame seems far to short to be able to show any trend. In such a short time frame processes like el nino/la nina and perhaps the 11 year sun spot cycle would have much larger effects than increases in greenhouse gases.

At first approximation its probably like a random fluctuation(el nino etc) imposed on a linear trend. If you just look at a short time span you will not notice the linear trend.

[BgMc31]

Kfrost,

You post a lot about the non-existence of global warming. I don't know much about the subject so I won't claim any expertise. But do you believe carbon emissions has zero affect on the environment, or are you just arguing the point that its making the world warmer?

Serious questions, brotha. I'm not trying to be fecitious.

[kfrost06]

Kfrost,

You post a lot about the non-existence of global warming. I don't know much about the subject so I won't claim any expertise. But do you believe carbon emissions has zero affect on the environment, or are you just arguing the point that its making the world warmer?

Serious questions, brotha. I'm not trying to be fecitious.

thats a good question and despite my skepticism on AGW I am a strong enviornmentalist. I do not own an AC, I drive a motorcycle and I recycle everything. I actually am glad gas and oil are on the rise and know we need an alternate fuel source. When it comes to AGW due to CO2 emmisions I am skeptical because...

Our oceans place about 90 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, and decaying organic matter places another 90 billion tons each year. Not only has this been going on since creation, scientists believe that the earth produced far more carbon dioxide in the distant past than we do now.

The earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling. The most recent ice age was only 400 years ago, but one of the most recent warm periods was in the 1940s. The most recent cooling period was in the 1960s and 70s, when scientists were concerned that we might be entering another small ice age, but in the 80s things began warming up.

Since around 1750, records of the earth’s temperature and solar temperature have been kept. When the temperatures of each are plotted on a graph, they indicate that the earth’s temperatures rise and fall at similar rates and patterns as the sun’s temperatures.

The real clue to the fallacy of global warming can be found in the Kyoto protocol, which gives pollution “credits” to each country. Industrialized nations get a few credits, but each of the developing nations get far more credits. Since the developing nations do not have a polluting infrastructure, they don’t need their credits and are able to sell them to nations who need them. It is a wealth redistribution program, one which President Bush wisely chose not to sign.

Ironically, high levels of carbon dioxide seem to be having a positive effect on the earth. For example, the number of trees has increased by 30 percent since 1950, and there is evidence that the higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are helping the rain forests to recover from bad logging practices.

God made this earth for the enjoyment of mankind, and He designed it to keep itself in balance with man’s activities. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for us to permanently harm the earth.

Of course, this is not an excuse to unnecessarily pollute. We all want and need clean air and clean water, so we should manage our activities in accordance with our available technology and means, but let’s not fall for bad science that has been created solely for political reasons.

[kfrost06]

The time frame seems far to short to be able to show any trend. In such a short time frame processes like el nino/la nina and perhaps the 11 year sun spot cycle would have much larger effects than increases in greenhouse gases.

At first approximation its probably like a random fluctuation(el nino etc) imposed on a linear trend. If you just look at a short time span you will not notice the linear trend.

True! I agree however it certianly does not help the arguement that increases in CO2 are the reasons for an increase in global temperature. I.E. If an increase in CO2 is the direct cause of increase in global tempature than why has the drastic increase in CO2 over the past decade not led to an increase in temp. in fact it has slightly decreased. Also, is their a mathametical model that explains this? or predicted this? NO.

I agree it's not enough to dispell the theory but it is enough to raise skeptisism and certianly doesn't warrent a consensus.

[Act of God]

I think too many people have difficulty taking someone like Kfrost or myself, who are pro-environment, and separating it from our refusal to drink the AGW kool-aid. I am completely for cleaner air and less pollution, but I will not have my intelligence insulted by limousine liberals trying to make the next big oil be "big green".