New Study Shows No Correlation Between Temperature And CO2 Levels

The core samples indicate that conditions in the Bering sea during the Pliocene Warm Period were ice free year round with an average surface temperature that was five degrees Celsius higher than today and had comparable levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) to today.

http://www.usnews.com/

 

 

About stevengoddard

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

46 Responses to New Study Shows No Correlation Between Temperature And CO2 Levels

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    what a coincidence. I actually looked up this paper today where they discuss just this issue.

    Click to access pliopar.pdf


    I do enjoy reading peer reviewed articles, as the authors tend to sound reasonable.
    One thing good that has come from your website is I read more peer reviewed stuff than I usually would.

  2. Sense Seeker says:

    Sorry, no time to read the article. But no climate scientist will try to make you believe that CO2 is the only factor that influences global temperature. (Assuming that the Bering straight hasn’t changed latitude, which would totally undermine any conclusions about correlations with CO2). Solar activity is another one – it just doesn’t explain the present warming.

    So the lack of correlation doesn’t disprove CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That’s been proven so many times over…

    To see what the science says, read this.

    • Present warming? Where is that occurring?

    • klem says:

      True no climate scientist would, but it’s not climate sceintists who plan to ram Cap&Trade down our throats. It’s the climate alarmists, environmentalists, UN officials and leftist politicians who are doing that.

    • Jimbo says:

      Sense Seeker says:
      December 15, 2010 at 1:08 am
      ——

      Tell that to Dr. Phil Jones from CRU.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Thanks for that link.

        That explains a lot. I had not fully realized that the “hide the decline” divergence issue was actually discussed in the paper the graph was in. Kind of undermines the idea that this was fraudulent and gives credence to his view that he was just removing extraneous data.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        why do you keep ducking about that earth shattering news about climate change last week? it was in WUWT. Don;t tell me you don’t check out his site.
        You could have had a field day with that. And why has no one else mentioned it here?

        And apparently the trees did go on strike. the point is that he was not engaged in any fraud if he discussed divergence in the article. His explanation is clear it makes sense and is reasonable

      • Tony Duncan says:

        wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened.
        But the point is that his explanation makes sense and he WORTE about the problem in the paper that is being touted as proof of fraud.
        One of the first rules of fraud is you DON’T mention the parts that might be fraudulent.
        If a cop stops you and asks you where you got that big bag of money, you don’t say. “Hmm. Not sure, but there is a bank that just got robbed down the street”

  3. suyts says:

    Well, now that’s a shocker. 20 years after the first skeptic shows this, its now part of science. Maybe 20 years from now they’ll come up with another shocker like how increased heat causes evaporation, which in turn causes clouds and clouds turn out to cool the earth as oppose to heating the earth. Maybe its just the cynic in me but more than likely we’ll be crying because it so damned cold and some cracker box scientist wanna be posits its because of the asinine windmills and solar panels we put up.

    • Sense Seeker says:

      Shocker to you, maybe. Like I said, to my knowledge climate science never claimed that CO2 is the only factor that drives climate. It’s only denialists that claim that climate scientists claimed that. But if you know better, please show me your source.

      I am afraid you are charging at windmills (straw men, or whatever) that you first built yourself.

      • peterhodges says:

        then there is no need to tax and trade carbon.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        *sigh* Yes there is, because it is not only the sun, CO2 also causes warming of the globe.

        Is it really so hard to understand that a phenomenon can have multiple possible causes?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Read the latest IPCC report to find who claims that CO2 is the primary driver of climate!
        Seeker: It is you and the rest of the Chicken little Brigade that are tilting at windmills. Most readers on this site think windmills are worthless junk.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Seeker:
        When will you have your patent for your CO2 perpetual motion machine?
        CO2 does not provide energy because it is an inert gas. It is non Combustible so how can it warm the planet?

      • peterhodges says:

        yes, apparently this has not really sunk in for ss

        Is it really so hard to understand that a phenomenon can have multiple possible causes?

      • suyts says:

        So, how much? How much is CO2 driving anything? Be it flooding or droughts or heat? How much of it is bad? How much of it is beneficial? How much of this BS is made up?(deserts turning dry and trees not thriving in deserts and hundreds of other examples) Here’s a question that should be easily quantified but I find nowhere that it is. How much additional IR heat is absorbed by the additional CO2 that otherwise would not be by H2O or nitrous oxide or even natural occurring CO2(however much that is)?

        Has anyone ever consider quantifying the negative effects of thwarting mankind’s progression? Hasn’t man always sought more efficient ways of doing things? Now its mandated. So much so, we don’t stop and think about what we’re doing. Light bulbs, ethanol, solar panels(apparently its ok to kill off a breed of turtles but owls are out of the question.) WTF? Earthday birthday people want a pristine environment? But we’re going to shade several thousand miles of desert? And then they have the audacity to speak of climate change? WTF about windmills? Yeh, no way they alter anything. Who in the heck are these people trying to kid? It would be entirely hilarious, except now I find I’m contributing to increasing the cost of living upon our poor people in this country, not only that, but the entire world. Why?

        Because coal is better burnt in China. And our REE is better to be mined there, too. Owls are worth more than turtles and cold is better than warmth………and war is peace.

        Sense seeker, I hope you know this isn’t directed at you. I’d try to re-word, but I can’t seem to change any of it.

        We don’t know what we don’t know. And in our irrational fear of what we don’t know, we’ve created a quest to protect what isn’t in danger, all the while sacrificing what is known. Sheer, unadulterated lunacy.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Sense seeker.
        You see this is the kind of meandering sludge that I trudge through daily.
        You say no climate scientist says CO2 is the only driver.
        there is no intermediate comment that acknowledges this.
        then Mile says IPCC says CO2 is the primary driver
        and peter says there is no reason to tax
        then Mike says CO2 cannot “heat the globe” because it is a non combustable gas.
        then Peter says it hasn’t sunk in.
        I was just at Science of Doom blog which appears to be an actual skeptic site that looks at more than just one side of the puzzle.
        No histrionics, no being called an idiot, just real discussion of pertinent issues. Clearly not as much fun as this site.

      • peterhodges says:

        Clearly not as much fun as this site.

        tony makes a cogent point!!

      • suyts says:

        Tony, this is what I have to drudge through. My post doesn’t mention CO2, yet, Sense reiterates a statement I didn’t challenge in direct response to me. But here’s a response that’s directed to a statement you made…….”I was just at Science of Doom blog….blah, blah, blah….’

        I make no apologies to participating in an antithesis(not quite, because you get to post here) to an alarmist blog. You ever been to RC? I tried for months to post there. If I even said boo about contradicting their thoughts, I was never posted.

        There was one exception, which is a hoot! The dolts made much hay about M&W10 statement about an 80% probability of analogous warming. I pointed out that it probably wasn’t what they were asserting. Gavin allowed the post only in an attempt to belittle me. Recently, they embarrassed themselves in a national journal making the same assertion I told them was incorrect!

        No, no apologies. The alarmists have it hands down on histrionics. This is satire and ridicule. And its past time this occurred. For the people like Romm, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Jones, and all of the others, they should have tried to engage in science in the first place, in the second place, when they were called out, they should have engaged. They’ve no quarter coming to them. I, certainly, won’t give any. They are to be ridiculed and scorned.

        If you guys want to discuss the science, I will engage, the best I can. I’m woefully lacking in a few places, but can get up to speed fairly quick.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        Clearly not as much fun as this site. LOL.

      • suyts says:

        @ 3:32 am “If you guys want to discuss the science, I will engage, the best I can. I’m woefully lacking in a few places, but can get up to speed fairly quick.”

        My post just 2 minutes ago……. 4:35 am……

        Sis, I didn’t build the windmills……a damned sure didn’t wish mankind to go on this Quixotic adventure. I would suggest that the alarmism over CO2 doesn’t come from skeptics. In fact, you know that it isn’t true. Or is this your pejorative of today? Really? Denialists? Over who started the CO2 scare? Just so I’m clear when I show you, are you confining the conversation to only CO2 or do we include all GHG’s?…awwhhh screw it…..

        “Causes of global warming

        Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800’s. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.”

        http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

        maybe NASA is just making this up.

        We can start from there.

      • suyts says:

        Sorry if I’m not clear, being at the bottom and all……..Sense Seeker, the above post is directed at you.

      • Espen says:

        I don’t get it why people are so obsessed with external “forcings”, be it CO2, the sun, GCRs or whatever – we’re talking about a mean global temperature change of less than 1C (even if we accept the questionable temperature record). I don’t think we’re even close to a level of knowledge of the (chaotic!) climate system that could rule out such small variations as being entirely system-internal.
        I like this quote from the university’s press release on this article: “We usually think of the ocean as being more stratified during warm periods, with less vertical movement in the water column,” she said. “If the ocean was actually overturning more during a period when it was warmer than today, then we may need to change our thinking about ocean circulation.”

      • sunsettommy says:

        Then what is Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis?

        The one the IPCC reports pushes a lot.

        LOL

  4. suyts says:

    6:30 am……is what i thought.

    • Sense Seeker says:

      Sorry suyts, I missed your post. Not sure I’m able to help much, as I’m not sure what you’re after. And I’m no climate scientist.

      And because of the latter, I try to find sources that I trust. Since I am an academic researcher, I know the peer-reviewed system is the best we have (much like democracy is the best form of governance – perfection is simply not on offer). I also trust the National Academy of Sciences, and to almost the same extent NOAA and NASA. For specific questions I like Skepticalscience because it gives evidence-based answers, but don’t tell anyone on this forum as that blog is haraam, apparently.

      I would include other greenhouse gasses, but CO2 is the major one and the most contested one – we rely heavily on fossil fuels, as you well know.

      Why on earth would NASA fake the whole lot? And if they do, how do they get others to go along with that? There are too many independent sources of information, and virtually all support the idea that we are heating up the planet with our fossil fuel use. (And to a lesser extent deforestation, …)

      I’m sure I didn’t write what you asked for, but it’s bedtime here in Oz. Cheers.

      • jmrSudbury says:

        Sorry Sense Seaker, but by now most of us are immune to appeals to authority. The post indicates that mechanisms exist that can allow warmer temperatures with our current level of CO2. That is it. Nothing ground breaking here, but it is interesting non-the-less.

        When it comes to AGW, I just go directly to the data. Even the best data has disproved the theories of the 1990s. The past few years, the models have been reworked in an effort to better hindcast the current decade or so (Jones of CRU says 15 years) of lack of warming. More data are needed to evaluate the current generation of climate models.

        John M Reynolds

      • Mike Davis says:

        Seeker:
        That explains every thing. You being a professional Academic researcher and all would require you to trust the so called Subject Matter Experts (SME). My job required that I question the output of the SMEs and find solutions to problems they created.
        You would trust the Scientific academies as that is how you live and I see the current actions of those academies as being just another NGO seeking funding from governments to support people like you and others that could not exist in the real competitive world of commerce but must rely of the largess of others to sustain a living.
        It does not matter how many peers reviewed a report, if it is not replicable it is garbage. If it does not address a specific issue as a signature or fingerprint specific to suggested cause it is garbage. If something else can explain the observations then the proposal is falsified.
        There are many reasons that GISS would be biased in their reports as that is their justification for existing and by exaggerating their projections they insure future funding for their research. It is the same with all other government organizations and is also observed easily in academia as that is required to secure grants for research. If it is not associated with a real world problem then funding probably would not be available even if the problem is fabricated.
        Academia is Fantasy Land! As Mark Twain said: Science is the ability to get a large amount of conjecture from a small amount of fact. Building Mountains out of mole hills is what academics do best and sometimes they even have to create the mental mole hills to begin the project.

      • glacierman says:

        Since when do reviewers replicate work, or experiments? They don’t. It often comes down to whether or not the reviewers like the authors, or their conclusions as to how they treat the review.

      • Mike Davis says:

        That is why the current peer review system is overhyped BS back slapping or restricting opposing viewpoints from being released.
        A large portion of what gets through peer review belongs in the latest Science Fantasy collection rather than so called science journals. That is why the leading science journals have lost whatever respect they once had.

      • Paul H says:

        Hi Sense

        Don’t you at least wonder why so many scientists are to say the least sceptical of the establishment climatology?

        Guys like Richard Tol –
        “A UN lead author Richard Tol lead author grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.”

        Or Eduardo Zorita –
        “UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. ”

        There many, many more who have these doubts and criticisms, all working in the same field.

        There are as well thousands more in different scientific fields who nevertheless recognise poor science and unscientific behaviour when they see it.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

      • Paul H says:

        “Why on earth would NASA fake the whole lot? And if they do, how do they get others to go along with that? ”

        I think fake is the wrong word – it suggests making something up that is false.

        What GISS and to a lesser extent CRU are doing is massaging figures to get the results they want. I am an accountant and (you can take my word on this) I can produce two totally different sets of accounts for my company from one lot of data. Furthermore I can fully justify either set to auditors, taxmen or anyone else who wants to look at them.

        It honestly cannot be any more difficult for GISS to add a few tenths of a degree here and there based purely on subjectivity and without actually falsifying data.

        As for the ” independent sources”, most of these only say the planet has been warming up – they simply are not qualified to say what is causing it. Nobody disputes this – the satellites tell us there was a modest warming upto 1998. If these sources blame it on CO2, they are only doing so because they have been told that is the reason.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        “I am an accountant and (you can take my word on this) I can produce two totally different sets of accounts for my company from one lot of data.”

        LOL. I’m sure you can.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        Well guys. If you prefer to believe Fox News instead of the Academy of Sciences, that’s your choice. And if you think the (almost) entire scientific world is conspiring to extract money from honest, hardworking people, so be it.

        Sounds paranoid to me, but go ahead.

      • jmrSudbury says:

        No. Not Fox News. Not anyone specific.

        Just the data.

        Not ignoring any data.

        It is just temperature data, so it is easy to understand. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand this.

        Just look at the data.

        It speaks volumes.

        There has been no warming for many years. The CO2 levels have gone up during that time. They are not correlated.

        The rest is just politics.

        John M Reynolds

      • Sense Seeker says:

        jmrSudbury, you keep referring to data and suggest that you have analysed them.

        But what data? And why should I trust that you are more capable of analysing them than the global meteorological instututions? Practically all charts show the hockey stick pattern – even on this blog. Glaciers are getting shorter, polar ice is disappearing, spring starts earlier… lots of suppoering evidence. Forgive me if I have no faith in your data analyses.

        “It is just temperature data, so it is easy to understand. You don’t need to be a scientist to understand this.” If you think analysing heaps of data over time and place is easy, you’re either brilliant or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        So far you don’t strike me as a genius.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Skeptical science Question and Answers are misleading and bad.

        A scientist answered them with better answers.Lubos Motl at his blog:

        http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

        Anthony Watts exposes John Cook vividly:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/

        Then John Cook himself tries to snooker me with his single Guesty post at my forum pushing his 104 question and answers link:

        http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-928.html

        He never came back to defend his misleading dishonest crap.

      • peterhodges says:

        If you prefer to believe Fox News instead of the Academy of Sciences, that’s your choice.

        nice fallacy of association.

        ordinarily i believe nothing i see on fox news, but there are 1000’s of peer-reviewed papers by members of science academies supporting the MWP

        you are simply trolling, or are immune to the evidence. also, the hockey stick is a proven fraud. how could you possibly expect anyone to take it seriously when you brandish it??

        coming out of the LIA it was possibly warmest since the MWP in the 30’s. the 90’s were not even as warm as that. now, it is getting colder again.

        were in the middle of an ice age for crying out loud! were on the cold side of an interglacial, which was colder than the last one.

      • jmrSudbury says:

        You are joking right? Even the GISS temperature data for the past 10 years has been quite flat as compared to the 80s to mid 90s. The trend has decreased significantly contrary to the theories of the IPCC. You cannot analyse that?

        Simply, they said that CO2 levels would make us warmer. They have not. Natural variability lasts for up to 7 years. That is up to 7 because of the possibility of huge volcanic eruptions. Since we have not had any huge volcanic eruptions since 1991, natural variability could account for only a couple of years.

        The warming trend has flattened though CO2 levels have skyrocketed. Contrary to your suggestion, it does not take a genius.

        The data is there. The http://www.woodfortrees.org/ site shows several temperature data sets including GISS and CO2 data.

        CO2: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12
        GISS: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1980
        HadCRUT: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980

        It is easy to read. Since you seem to understand trends, by way of your hockey stick reference, you should be able to get this. Indeed, it is still a hockey stick, but the blade is on the left going up during the mid 1990s, and the handle is the flat part of the past 10 years.

        Here, I made a picture for you: http://yfrog.com/j6tempstickp

        See? I told you it was easy.

        John M Reynolds

  5. Bill Illis says:

    The CO2 estimates for the period range from 220 ppm to 363 ppm.

    So, 1.5C to 2.0C warmer globally with no CO2 doublings.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Bill:
      It depends on what your start year is! It appears one needs to carefully pick the coldest year in the recent past to find the best warming trend. In geologic time 300 years is recent.

  6. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,
    I think we need another soccer (do you guys call it football there> I forget) post to cool things down

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s