http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated. It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present. NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels. NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data. Beware of making conclusions about turning points or lags when only one single point may be involved. NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data is 150,000-100,000 years ago. The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important
My english may suffer because I am a bit lazy and dont take the time for perfect english. On the other hand your wealth of english skills are exceeded only by your absolute dearth of common sense.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/first-week-of-2017-record-cold-48-states-going-below-freezing/ Here is a link showing the massive global warming we are going to experience soon. After going to this link now I believe what many here have been telling me. They have told me about the massive amounts of CO2 we have been releasing into our atmosphere and we are warming at an alarming rate. See the link and you will understand my alarm.
Couple of things that come together to make him very dangerous. This is of course just my opinion He's very aggressive in two parts of the world most important to us; Europe and the Middle East By aggressive in Europe I mean just saying fuck you I'm taking the Crimea - about the size of Massachusetts - and I dare you to try and stop me. And he's not done - he's working on other pieces of the Ukraine. And he's putting pressure By aggressive in the Middle East I mean elbowing us out of our leadership position - although we hardly pushed back. He acted as if he was the lead dog and we were the 2nd rate power. We just spent a lot of diplomatic resources and capitol to reestablish a relationship with Iran and Putin is now having critical meetings with them and our Nato ally about Syria and we aren't even invited to the press conference after the meeting. Again, he said fuck you move over - and we did. He's an egomaniac with an inferiority complex AND we (Obama administration) have emboldened him. He thinks Russia should be considered the equal of the US - but he doesn't have the economic might to equal his desires so hes more likely to reach for more than he should. AND, he's got a lot of Nukes of various types and sizes. If his aggression puts him in a corner with no way out the unthinkable becomes a threat consideration. Wars have started on less. China down the road may be more dangerous, especially with the North Korean nut job as a wild card. But today - for me - I worry about Putin's next moves.
A quote from Joanne Nova.... And by the way, she's a molecular biologist, not a climate scientist. Her main field of work is in DNA marking.
Not a bit of analysis on what causes global warming in that piece. Correlation doesn't imply causation my friend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cor..._causation#B_causes_A_.28reverse_causation.29 I've provided a causation which the author you cite acknowledges. Like her I see the cause and general result...more CO2 in the atmosphere leading to a warmer world. Like her I don't see the catastrophic warming yet. Try again.
If there is more CO2 now than why has there been no warming for the last 20 years? There should be rapid or steady warming at the very least. The answer is CO2 does not cause warming rather warming causes a rise in CO2. Even with that said its not mans fault.
