The point you seem to perpetually miss (since recently you've asked multiple questions on this subject), is that despite the annual variation we have no trouble seeing the long-term upward trend. If you had actually attempted what I suggested in my answer to another one your questions:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
you would probably have a much better understanding of the process, but instead you wrote a rambling and irrelevant paragraph in response.
It wouldn't be hard to do what I suggested, it's possible you have enough tools on the computer you're working on to do it.
Or else you can sit around playing numerology and not try to understand anything.
Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.
In 2012, the global temperature was about 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. That number made 2012 the 10th warmest year on record within a database going back to 1880. But among years with La Ni?a events under way (which typically cool the climate), 2012 was the third warmest on record.
More CO2 in the atmosphere does not mean every year will be warmer than the previous year. If that were true, we would be in SERIOUS trouble. Global climate is a complicated system with many variables to consider. There are periodic fluctuations such as El Nino/La Nina, or sun activity. The thing is a lot these are cyclical, and predictable to a certain extent. CO2 is not cyclical if it is progressively increasing over time. It is true that climate models are difficult due to the complicated nature of the global climate, but they are getting better all the time. They are still showing and predicting global warming and climate change. CO2 is still increasing in the atmosphere. The consequences are still popping up across the globe...
CR: "Is your question about the "pause," which is a slight slowdown and not a drastic drop, or are you talking about weather? "
It isn't a slowdown, it is cooling. That is the realistic viewpoint.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Try the old sleight of hand on some other site. You are fooling no one. If you don't know up from down then why are you even trying? Ha! Ha! All the last decade of temperature drop while the CO2 level increases and you want to call it weather. Ha! Ha! There is an opening at Marvel Comic Book Company. I suggest you apply for it.
Eden: According to your reference. This is based upon three other authorities:
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Climatic Data Center
UK Met Office Hadley Centre
Two of which were influenced by James Hansen, a proven liar and now a full time communist agitator.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
And one by Phil Jones, a self admitted liar and corrupter of data.
Secondly, it uses a database going back to 1880. We have proven many times on this site, there is no truly scientific, consistent and genuine database going back that far. Back in 1880 there was no global temperature collection. Temperature collection globally was spotty at best.
Direct answer to your question: Good point. If the temperature was above, let us say, 100 degrees F you would think that the concentration of CO2 would be higher than if the temperature was 60 degrees F, if the greenhouse was truly in effect. It is not, so we can conclude that CO2 does not drive the temperature. Your question points out the fallacy of CO2 vs. Temperature.
Actually 2007 was ,55 warmer than 20th century average for combined land and sea, making it the 5th warmest year on record. This site can lay your confusion to rest and release the pressure on your cranium. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/200...
Where's the decrease genius?
All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature and Global warming has been over since last year 2012. Mike
Basically, there are bigger influences on surface temperatures than CO2, but they are not (at least at present) *directional*. Most are cycles (as in, they go up and down and up and down fairly regularly), the rest are relatively random and/or short-term.
There's a lovely analogy here: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/scie... about a man walking a dog on a long leash.
Essentially, all the things that caused weather in the past--ENSO, PDO, sunspot cycles, and so on--are still happening. But now, instead of them happening over a relatively steady baseline, they're happening over a rising baseline.
Good question. Why indeed, if CO2 drives temperature in a forcing/feedback loop, would the temperature ever come down?
Warmists tell us that *something* causes an initial warming --- then CO2 takes over and causes more warming, which causes even more CO2 to be released from the oceans, WHICH CAUSES EVEN MORE WARMING --- and on an on this loop goes ad infinitum until the oceans boil. But obviously --- this doesn't happen in the REAL world.
There would never be a way for the warming to retreat if their theory was true. Global temperature would get to some high temperature and be stuck there.
It takes an OUTSIDE force, something OUTSIDE of their fantasy feedback loop to make the temperature decrease and that of course leaves ONLY the Sun.
This graph shows it very clearly, temperatures change FIRST and then CO2 FOLLOWS, there is no controlling CO2 feedback loop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-te...
The Sun is always the overwhelming driver of climate. CO2 is just along for the ride.
-----------------------
Chem - You say: "there are bigger influences on surface temperatures than CO2"
Care to name a few?
-----------------------
The answer is simple. Natural variability within the climate itself. We would truly be in a world of hurt if temperature rise precisely followed the rise in CO2 levels. Take a short lived blessing that the planet does still have natural variability within the climate system itself. There will be a point reached where the natural variability within the climate will be overcome with the rising CO2 levels.
Is your question about the "pause," which is a slight slowdown and not a drastic drop, or are you talking about weather?
In either case, no one claims that carbon dioxide is the only influence on weather and climate.
Sagebrush
Ten years is weather.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
And videos of graphs taped to see-saws prove nothing.
This is in reference to NASA's Goddard Institute's Q and A section here pertaining to their ability to measure "absolute temperature" : http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
What caused the decrease of 0.70C in one year from January 2007 to January 2008 in the anomalies?
What caused the steep increase from February 1994 to February 1995 of 0.77C and then the sudden decrease of 0.49C three months later in April of 1995?
How does climate science explain these drastic fluctuations? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Simple answer, CO2 is not a forcing
Temperatures go up due to CO2. Temperatures go down due to natural variance.
Somewhere there is a tree ring that proves it. If I had more grant money I would find it.
