Correlating Temperature With CO2

NCAR graph from the 1970s

Now that at least one member of the Hockey team has acknowledged that the cooling in the 1970s was both real and natural, we can analyze older data which was not perturbed by people with an agenda to prove global warming. The graph below compares NCAR’s 1970s temperatures vs. atmospheric CO2.

As you can see, there isn’t much of a correlation – the graph is almost flat.

Since then, the official temperature data has been massaged many times to make the past colder and the present warmer.  So it is useful to do a correlation using data from the pre-agenda climate era.

Blink comparator showing GISS US temperature changes from 1998 to present.

Here is what people wanted to do to solve the climate problem of 1975

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

————————————

Data used in the graph :

293.6   0.1
294.6   0.02
294.8   0.32
297.6   0.39
298.9   0.14
300.1   0.3
300.4   0.3
301.7   0.3
305     0.38
307.7   0.7
310.3   0.65
310.3   0.87
310.3   0.81
311.5   0.46
314.2   0.3
318.99  0.38
325.68  0.23
About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Correlating Temperature With CO2

  1. Pingback: Change we can believe in | Sullivan's Travelers

  2. Pingback: The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 263

  3. Of couse. “Steven Goddard”‘s “Real Science” cherry-picking and therefore misleading again.

    Here you can see that part of the 1970 graph

    This anomaly has been well discussed in the past.

  4. Pingback: Climate Con: ‘Official temperature data has been massaged many times to make the past colder and the present warmer’ | Dark Politricks

  5. We are talking about The Great Salinity Anomaly which is broadly believed to be the reason for surface cooling could have pushed down temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the 70s.

    The guardian writes clearly, “The discovery does not cast doubt on the overall science of human-caused climate change.”

    The earth is warming, Steven, not cooling.

  6. So you want to tell us that The Guardian, which you use as base for your argumentation, is NOT “open-minded unbiased” if it states in the same article, “The discovery does not cast doubt on the overall science of human-caused climate change”?

    “The Great Salinity Anomaly” is believed as the cause for surface cooling of the North Atlantic pushed down temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the 70s.

    That’s not new, Steven.

    Temperature anonalies 1881 – 2007

    Again: The earth is warming, not cooling.

  7. Dr. Shooshmon, phd. says:

    Not really, Charlie. It all depends on where you want to start. I have noticed you complain about when people pick a certain starting point, then you pick a certain starting point. How about we start in the Cambrian era. If we start there the earth is cooling. Furthermore, I can pick a point in time when there were no ice caps and then claim that ice is growing at an alarming rate. The earth is billions of years old and we are below the average historical level of co2.

    • At the moment we are burning all the carbon stored after the Cambrian era (500 million years ago), Dr, You should know that. And you should also know that we are burning the equivalence of ~ 500,000 years of carbon storage in our grounds every single year.

      It is more than naive to believe this fact, and the fact that the global proportion of CO2 of our atmosphere have risen by 30% (!) by burning those fossil fuels in just one century (!) would NOT have an eradicative impact on Earth’s climate. And it is counterproductive to ‘believe’ that as an educated person, calling himself a doctor. Very counterproductive ignoring the evidence, Sir.

      The current acceleration in global temperature is unprecedented!

    • Ross Brisbane says:

      Perhaps we could pick the unbreathable atmosphere of CO2 before life began on earth. Silly logic and argument.

      Choosers are pikers and the pickers are cherry pickers.

      But what did the science say?

      And exactly what is the TEMPERATURE anomaly based on? Can you tell me?

      And while your at it tell me what equilibrium is?

      As radiative forcing of the greenhouse gas CO2 is this science based in the laws of physics on not?

      Where have the temperature rises been lately? Care to look it up?

      What signature in our climate disproves AGW? Think hard on this and aren’t air temps in case your wondering.

      What landmass does the USA contribute to the globes surface?

      If its freezing in the States and a heatwave in Russia which landmass is greater or lesser as part of globe?

      What caused the records snows of last winter?

      What is just one positive sign that AGW is correct when it comes Northern hemisphere winters?

      What scientist defined the radiative forcing of CO2 as a measurement in defined Watts per square meter prior to Mann and the IPCC?

      What part of atmosphere was this based on?

      Has the hockey been refuted or simply micro adjusted without significant repudiation of AGW?

      Would McIntyre agree with this statement?

      “Fools live by omission – the wise live by weighing up everything and then plan”

  8. Louis Hissink says:

    Charlie,

    Which part of the earth is warming? The mass of the earth itself or that flimsy wisp of tenuous gas coating it? Or both? And what metric is being used to make that conclusion? before the Argo buoys SST can be ignored, so heavens knows what statistical trickery Phil Jones et al used to de-error the historical SST’s to come up with a publishable paper.

  9. Pingback: Dprogram.net 'Countering Propaganda' » Blog Archive » Climate Con: ‘Official temperature data has been massaged many times to make the past colder and the present warmer’

  10. Pingback: Climate Con: ‘Official temperature data has been massaged many times to make the past colder and the present warmer’ | NW0.eu

  11. Chad Izier says:

    30% (!) Egads(!)

    The portion of the atmosphere that is CO2 is now .01% higher than it was in 1880.

  12. Michael D Smith says:

    Very counterproductive ignoring the evidence, Sir.

    The current acceleration in global temperature is unprecedented!

    Unprecedented? Do you have evidence of that? It’s interesting that you see acceleration where the slope of the modern warming period looks just like all of the others (even, constant slope). I would agree that the last little blip is most impressive compared to the rest of recent history. NOT.

  13. Pingback: www.TheTruthHurts.co.uk » Blog Archive » Correlating Temperature With CO2

  14. Peter Whale says:

    Hi Charlie show us the data and show us the code.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s