Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

CO2 has gone up at the same time temperature has gone up.

A more careful examination of the data on your part would reveal to you that Temperature did not always go up when CO2 went up. If it did, the conclusion would first appear to be that CO2 going up caused temperature to go up. The only other possible explanation would appear to be that something which caused CO2 to go up also caused Temperature to go up.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
1958 0.224 0.126 -0.036 -0.038 -0.046 -0.065 -0.038 -0.061 -0.116 -0.032 -0.040 -0.010 -0.011
1959 0.011 -0.041 -0.022 -0.041 -0.099 -0.013 -0.086 -0.043 -0.041 -0.114 -0.234 -0.153 -0.073
1960 -0.107 0.056 -0.381 -0.245 -0.240 -0.115 -0.110 -0.069 -0.026 -0.095 -0.212 0.048 -0.125
1961 -0.003 0.098 0.011 -0.003 0.032 0.054 -0.060 0.015 -0.087 -0.079 -0.094 -0.167 -0.024
1962 -0.027 0.079 -0.042 -0.067 -0.107 -0.050 0.004 -0.024 -0.003 0.020 -0.027 -0.019 -0.022
1963 -0.106 0.119 -0.148 -0.116 -0.053 -0.068 0.070 0.087 0.057 0.138 0.064 -0.026 0.001
1964 -0.103 -0.251 -0.347 -0.314 -0.254 -0.228 -0.235 -0.321 -0.362 -0.334 -0.346 -0.454 -0.296
1965 -0.193 -0.319 -0.302 -0.323 -0.220 -0.182 -0.243 -0.199 -0.180 -0.097 -0.200 -0.135 -0.216
1966 -0.167 -0.127 -0.126 -0.176 -0.219 -0.070 -0.048 -0.111 -0.104 -0.172 -0.185 -0.272 -0.148
1967 -0.221 -0.293 -0.161 -0.131 -0.012 -0.162 -0.150 -0.112 -0.159 -0.013 -0.164 -0.216 -0.149
1968 -0.300 -0.296 -0.041 -0.232 -0.259 -0.133 -0.123 -0.100 -0.135 -0.072 -0.085 -0.132 -0.159
1969 -0.240 -0.162 -0.005 0.087 0.067 -0.029 -0.025 0.002 -0.019 -0.012 0.076 0.129 -0.011
1970 0.029 0.108 -0.116 0.026 -0.077 -0.073 -0.103 -0.124 -0.097 -0.107 -0.094 -0.184 -0.068
1971 -0.093 -0.302 -0.305 -0.245 -0.220 -0.247 -0.132 -0.170 -0.127 -0.161 -0.068 -0.212 -0.190
1972 -0.371 -0.317 -0.141 -0.066 -0.056 0.022 -0.021 0.024 -0.040 0.021 0.054 0.197 -0.058
1973 0.175 0.278 0.247 0.165 0.126 0.109 0.019 0.007 -0.033 -0.017 -0.077 -0.078 0.077
1974 -0.390 -0.406 -0.258 -0.186 -0.180 -0.148 -0.129 -0.093 -0.161 -0.197 -0.184 -0.245 -0.215
1975 -0.098 -0.119 -0.062 -0.092 -0.099 -0.110 -0.139 -0.202 -0.166 -0.257 -0.344 -0.353 -0.170
1976 -0.266 -0.333 -0.470 -0.227 -0.329 -0.284 -0.202 -0.202 -0.169 -0.304 -0.177 -0.097 -0.255
1977 -0.134 0.075 0.109 0.060 0.045 0.078 0.021 -0.028 0.016 -0.019 0.096 -0.110 0.017
1978 0.014 -0.001 0.007 -0.067 -0.105 -0.127 -0.067 -0.189 -0.059 -0.124 0.019 -0.076 -0.065
1979 -0.029 -0.105 0.031 -0.047 -0.047 0.028 0.038 0.067 0.083 0.106 0.135 0.330 0.049
1980 0.106 0.172 0.055 0.133 0.119 0.062 0.055 0.009 0.015 -0.016 0.157 0.048 0.076
1981 0.260 0.164 0.200 0.097 0.069 0.117 0.097 0.111 0.080 -0.014 0.025 0.238 0.120
1982 -0.028 -0.033 -0.123 0.024 0.041 -0.047 -0.021 -0.022 0.059 0.024 0.016 0.230 0.010
1983 0.386 0.315 0.180 0.116 0.115 0.126 0.130 0.184 0.160 0.090 0.235 0.082 0.177
1984 0.088 0.011 0.053 -0.022 0.072 -0.025 -0.039 0.041 0.036 -0.048 -0.122 -0.294 -0.021
1985 0.019 -0.145 -0.027 -0.053 -0.008 -0.057 -0.056 0.015 -0.042 -0.010 -0.103 0.007 -0.038
1986 0.115 0.082 0.048 0.038 0.018 0.044 -0.007 -0.007 0.014 0.045 -0.044 0.010 0.030
1987 0.118 0.267 0.020 0.069 0.135 0.122 0.255 0.220 0.256 0.174 0.188 0.326 0.179
1988 0.348 0.201 0.257 0.241 0.179 0.207 0.164 0.158 0.158 0.124 0.018 0.104 0.180
1989 -0.002 0.094 0.080 0.081 0.051 0.067 0.163 0.174 0.135 0.145 0.052 0.188 0.102
1990 0.198 0.245 0.467 0.303 0.242 0.235 0.208 0.226 0.166 0.284 0.285 0.196 0.255
1991 0.229 0.283 0.176 0.317 0.254 0.287 0.292 0.240 0.182 0.135 0.077 0.079 0.213
1992 0.282 0.251 0.208 0.120 0.110 0.108 -0.021 -0.017 -0.093 -0.080 -0.119 -0.007 0.062
1993 0.217 0.166 0.209 0.104 0.153 0.131 0.080 0.060 0.018 0.061 -0.032 0.103 0.106
1994 0.157 -0.090 0.181 0.173 0.244 0.213 0.152 0.171 0.158 0.238 0.247 0.217 0.172
1995 0.359 0.468 0.293 0.230 0.171 0.288 0.299 0.317 0.206 0.244 0.276 0.151 0.275
1996 0.065 0.254 0.134 0.095 0.167 0.148 0.182 0.185 0.090 0.083 0.072 0.170 0.137
1997 0.150 0.251 0.265 0.198 0.241 0.379 0.372 0.411 0.459 0.496 0.468 0.533 0.352
1998 0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444 0.548

CAD = CO2 Atmospheric Density (ppm)
AAGTA = Average Annual Global Temperature Anomaly (°C)
RSI = Reconstructed Solar Irradiance (W/m^2)

YEAR in November...CAD.........AAGTA.........RSI
1887.............................................................1364.64
1910.............................................................1364.66
1933.............................................................1365.41
1944.............................................................1365.85
1955(CAD est)............312.70.......-0.385........1366.17
1966.........................319.78.......-0.185........1366.00
1977.........................332.35........0.096........1366.10
1988.........................349.99........0.018........1366.10
1999.........................366.51........0.210........1366.13
2010(est)..................390.09........0.533.........1366.20

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

394
Research physicist Dr. Tom Quirk, a former University lecturer, fellow of three Oxford Colleges, and a board member of the Australian based Institute of Public Affairs, authored a June 7, 2007 paper questioning carbon dioxide measurements in the atmosphere titled "Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts." Quirk's paper found that "it is not possible to compare peaks and valleys in CO2 measurements from VOSTOK or EPICA with contemporary atmospheric time series. There is a mismatch in gas age resolutions. Peaks are flattened and valleys are fill of rice core measurements." The paper concluded, "Thus on our contemporary timescale it is not possible to say that CO2 level has not been above 300 ppm for the last 500,000 years. The same comment applies to comparing the ‘rapid' run up of contemporary CO2 levels with the ice core records where ‘sharp' pulses of less than 100 years may well be smoothed away." http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

When you make a mistake, it is so much easier to just ignore those that point it out.

Parados Quote:

Quote:

The average temperature and average irradiance trends on the chart you posted end on 2005. Only the temperature and irradiance cycles go to 2010.

ICAN Quote:

Quote:

Why don't you show what happened to AVERAGE Temperature and AVERAGE Irradiance after 2005?

I guess ican's response was to cherry pick his data.

Would you look at that.. CO2 has gone up at the same time temperature has gone up.

Parados, in your Temperature vs Solar Activity Chart, Temperature was shown to rise less than 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit), 1960 thru 2005, while Solar Irradiance over the same period decreased about 0.4 W/m^2.

Why don't you show what happened to Temperature and Irradiance after 2005?

1966.........................319.78.......-0.185........1366.00
1977.........................332.35........0.096........1366.10
1988.........................349.99........0.018........1366.10
1999.........................366.51........0.210........1366.13
2010(est)..................390.09........0.533.........1366.20

Explaining anything to you is less productive then beating one's head against a wall.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

395
Dr. Alex Robson, a professor in the School of Economics in the College of Business and Economics at the Australian National University and a former Economist at the Federal Treasury, ridiculed the notion of taking out an "insurance policy" against man-made global warming. "Simply put, as far as the benefits of emissions reductions are concerned, there is no ‘risk' for Australia to ‘manage,'" Robson wrote in a paper on June 29, 2007. "As a matter of science, economics and logic this ‘insurance policy' analogy is completely inappropriate and indeed grossly misleading. As far as Australia's CO2 emissions reductions are concerned, the entire ‘risk management' argument simply cannot be sustained," Robson explained. "A policy of emission reductions is like taking out an ‘insurance policy' in which there is never any positive payoff," he added. http://www.lavoisier.com.au