we have gone over this the modern record shows that co2 lags change in temperature by 6 to 9 months. I have given you the study a dozen times. why do you keep lying your ass off? here is one of the studies which shows you are lying... http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html ... Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
Whatever. Lead, lag, concurrent. It doesn't matter. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What that means is as its' levels go up so do temps. This is elementary baby stuff. I don't know why you are having so much trouble with the concept. Are you Republican? Libtardian?
current science says greenhouse gasses function as thermostats...when it is warm they cool and vice versa. let me know if you need me to post the previous science again. here is a yet another study showing co2 cools. It is a model so I do not take it as proof of anything... but it shows how brain dead your idea that co2 causes warming in a linear manner is. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback â a cooling effect â in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Yes, they say that the level of CO2 acts as the setting on a thermostat. Yes the stratosphere is cooling due to CO2. What is your point? Oh that's right, denial.
Freud would say you're reminiscing about your gay brother fucking you in the ass when you were younger.
"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort." His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010. Among those named as key nodes of the network were the American Enterprise Institute, which claims to have no institutional position on climate change, and the Heritage Foundation, which campaigns on a number of issues. However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors. While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power." He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy." http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/billion-dollar-climate-denial-network-exposed/
so you are saying nasa is corrupt? and all the scientists who get grants from the govt? because this study is from nasa. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...ant-growth.html A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback â a cooling effect â in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.