http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a5116c864b970c-pi

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/

In order to understand your reasonable question, you would have to have a sense of logic. You can tell by the answers who does not have that.

Everyone knows that Al Gore clearly demonstrated in his movie that when CO2 went up the temperature went up in some proportionality. When the CO2 level went down the Earth's temperature went down in some proportionality. Now that, that tenet has been proven wrong by Mother Earth herself, the greenies are frantically trying to salvage some sort of coherency to their evil agenda.

Many decades ago the prominent scientists, James Hansen was one of those even though he now denies it, were predicting an Ice Age due to CO2 levels.

Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

To the greenies, the environment is like a violin, you can play any tune on it.

Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."

In direct answer to your question. It would indicate that CO2 does not control Earth's temperature. It only confirms recent events:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

The Earth has cooled for the last decade, yet the CO2 level has gone up. Game over. Al Gore's theory is bogus. It is being proven at this time and has been proven by history. The AGW theory with CO2 as the cause is definitely bogus.

CO2 traps some of the heat energy from the sun from returning back into space and creates an energy imbalance. More heat energy is not coming in. More heat energy is being retained. No matter what caused the planet to warm in the past does not negate the scientific evidence that increasing our atmospheric CO2 levels will warm our planet beyond the natural variations within the climate system itself. Should you posses knowledge of the mechanics involved that would allow us to increase the atmospheric levels of CO2 and not cause a warming of the planet beyond the climate's natural variations then it would be beneficial to us all for you to explain those mechanisms to us all. At least come up with a scientific theory that better explains the observations than does the AGWT. .... How hard could that be?

Update

In comparison as to any warming that took place before and what is the main driver of the warming now, yes, the past does relate to what is happening now.

What does your "cash for clunkers" link have to do with any level of warming that was from 1894 to 1953? Following your line of reasoning, "cash for clunkers" has helped to lower global surface temperatures as compared to the 1894-1953 time frame.

HADCrut4 is a blend of land surface and sea surface temperatures. Is this the only part of the planet that warms or cools? Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcr...

Why not take a better look at the temperature data from 1850 to 2013?

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat...

Image source: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat...

What do you see there?

Update 2

Should you believe that the data has been rigged then explain how the Arctic region and most of the world's glaciers have lost ice without a warming process being involved. Rig the data the other way and see if all that ice returns to the pre industrial levels. I'll wait while you check it out.

I thought that worse was an alarmunist term.

Anyway, Earth warmed faster from 1954-2013 than it did from 1894-1953.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...

Nevertheless, temperature does not exactly match carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is not the only influence on temperature. The Sun doesn't exactly match temperature either.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-ac...



If you have some evidence that the "raw" data is better than the corrected data, I suggest that you do the following two steps.

1. Submit you evidence to Nature for publication.

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

2. Plan to make a trip to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize.

Hey Dook


If nuclear weapons caused the destruction of Hiroshima, then how was Pompeii destroyed?>

The destruction of Pompeii was natural. Therefore, so was the destruction of Hiroshima.

kano...tsk, tsk, trsk GW has not flatlined If it is what you infer, that is another lie The only thing close to flatlining is surface temps the combination of surface and ocean temps (which make up GW) are still growing with 2000-2010 being the warmest decade in 134 years and 2013 being tied as the 4th warmest year in 134 years

BTW c3 is just another of your lame denier sites

Ian... learn some real climate science so you don't continue to embarrass your self constantly

So according to your c3 website (a blog popular with a certain set of denier id's) temps rose 0.58c between 1894-1953 and 0.39c between 1954-2013.

It's the same old game of picking the best years to statistically show a trend that isn't there, the same game that is played with using 1998 as the starting point of cooling.

Here is the temperature data

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#g...

1894 is picked as the starting point because it is a low point (data actually goes back to 1880, but that is ignored (for obvious reason) as it would alter the point deniers are trying to make) but then that is also why 1953 is picked as the end point for this claim it was an anomalous warm year.

This also means that the following 20 years to the 1970's are part of the of the extended PDO further skewing the point deniers are trying to invent here.

Change the points in this statistical charade to say 1889-1950 and you could claim less than a 0.2c rise with a 1951-2013 rise of over 0.5c, but those of us who follow science rather than tea leaves don't try and play such childish statistical tricks, we leave that to deniers, although to be honest they are awfully bad at it.

Deniers also have a tendency to simply make up information i.e. kano

"sea level rise has slowed since 2004" note as usual he offers nothing to back this claim

well he is the sea level data, where is this slowing he refers to

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index....

For a slowing, the rate of rise would have to fall and it quite simply has not, 3.16mm has been the number for a few years now, there have certainly been a couple of dips in short term data but they had equally strong recoveries and these 2 dips happened in just the last 4 years, not going back to 2004, kano is once again just inventing information.

As for the claims about global sea ice, the reasons why Antarctic sea ice is expanding have been covered many times (kano just ignores them, usually with his standard conspiracy rants) in a response to me he even forgot his own standard answer and agreed glacial ice is shrinking, and Antarctic glacial ice melt is one of the reasons Antarctic sea ice is expanding as it adds fresh water to the surrounding waters allowing sea ice to form more easily, while in the Arctic sea ice levels are running well below average, 2012 was a record low year and current levels have been running below 2012 since mid Feb.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...

Lets see if long terms like Ian can rise above the rhetoric and actually address the point of the rather sad statistical game being played in your C3 graph, but I won't hold my breath.

The heat doesn't stay in the atmosphere...it moves to colder venues such as ice and seawater. How many times does this have to be explained?

Alarmists: "To answer your question... oh wait. Let's just make some necessary adjustments to cool past temps and warm current ones and then... oh look, now we're warming faster with greater increases in CO2 than before so your question is invalid."

The new 'science'. If your data doesn't match your hypothesis, adjust your data.

If nuclear weapons caused the destruction of Hiroshima, then how was Pompeii destroyed?

You got be a bit stupid to believe in global warming when CO2 is sky rocketing, and global temperatures are flat-lining, when sea level rise has slowed since 2004, and global sea ice is one million sq km above average

Edit

http://www.revelations.org.za/images/Gra...

Antarcticice I have never denied that some or even the majority of glaciers are melting. however even NASA admits to not much melting in Antarctica they say the glaciers are sliding into the sea. http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8wWU4...

C. heat going into the oceans would cause sea level rise to accelerate.

Som1 your chart conveniently ends at 2000 just when cooling started.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a5116c864b970c-pi

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/