Good graph, lets discuss in more detail. The period that I believe most illustrates my point is the time frame between 1940 and roughly 1980. During this period the CO2 concentration was presumed to have smoothly continued to grow, but temps dropped considerably. This is not a small amount of time that could be easily ignored as scatter, variation, complicated lag, or whatever the latest excuse.

The obvious conclusion is that temps (even if we agree they are as plotted), do not correlate well with CO2 concentration.

As a side point, I beleive the data behind this plot does not back out the popular “heat island” effect of the temp stations in the US being heated by civilization. If this is backed out, I have seen the argument that the cooling period that starts at 1940 essentially extends to the present. As virtually all graphs showing heating rely to some degree on these temp guages (because they are numerous and relatively well maintained and stable), and most alarmists do not properly correct for it (by weighting the undisturbed stations more heavily, or eliminating the corrupted ones), I do not think much of these graphs or this argument.

But I stand: CO2 is not positively correlated (much less well correlated) with CO2 concentrations. Your graphs helps my point (although not as much as it would if it actually showed global temps properly).

PS: I do appreciate the good arguments instead of insults, I’ll refrain as well.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

The Old Farmer’s Almanac has more credibility as they have the guts to publish a critical view on AGW.

Sorry to hear that AGW offends your political and ideological views. Doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

cfdman – The radiative forcing garbage is just a distraction you are using to confuse is truly one of the funniest things I’ve seen in any climate-related forum. Now, what do you make of this graph?

Excellent, you completely mis-read my point and spouted crap that was irrelevant. And your a pompous ass, but back to the point.

What does the absorbtivity and emmisivity of CO2 have to do with the fact that CO2 concentrations have nothing to do with warming, and are not even positively correlated with warming? Try to answer the question this time around, if you can. The radiative forcing garbage is just a distraction you are using to confuse.

Right, journals aren’t written ‘by people’ you imply. If you disparage a journal, a blog, a product, a committee, you are not of course insulting the ‘person’ or ‘persons’ involved… of course not.

Nonetheless, word games don’t disguise lack of logical reasoning.

cfdman. Indulge us and tell us the first two numbers I asked for, would you? Remember that you described the first as ‘a great deal’, and the second as ‘much less’. We can all look at the graphs, but it appears that only you can find such a large difference between the two. So, explain how you did that, won’t you?

what is radiative forcing, you ask. Well, it’s a rather basic term in climate science, that anyone who doesn’t wish to look profoundly stupid would do well to know before forming an opinion on climate science issues. The radiative forcing due to a change in concentration of CO2 is the change in balance between incoming and outgoing radiation caused by the change in CO2 concentration. It’s pretty staggering that you obviously had no idea about this very basic concept.

“the temperature change in the first period you are referring to”, look at the plot above. Silly objection.

“the temperature change in the second period you are referring to”, again look at the plot above. Rediculous

“the radiative forcing due to CO2 in the first period. 4. the forcing due to CO2 in the second period”, WTF? Are you daft man? Do you even know what these terms mean?

You must be referring to the emittence of CO2, and referring to it as radiative forcing. This is not a term found in thermodynamics, so I am not sure what exactly it means. When referring to a gas, I would expect words like: emittence, absorbtion, albedo, reflectance, capacitance, you get the idea. What is radiative forcing due to CO2?

PS: Numbering stuff does not make your arguments look better posed or your words look more sophisticated.

ad hominem argument (argument against the person)

The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it. This fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive form, ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the appearance, character, or personality of the individual.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm

Or in other words, attacking the journal, not the merits of the technical arguments contained within the paper itself.

I have to say, calling an organisation, entity or individual a “joke” and then claiming it’s not a ‘personal attack’ is remarkably dopey.

Roy W. Spencer is a well known AGW ‘Denier’ a PHD, U.S., Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite, holder of the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, published in Nature (one of the most prestigious science journals in the world), yet some of his most basic scientific ideas are clearly ridiculous. That’s the problem with the standard AGW Alarmist argument that ‘prestige’ = ‘truth’ in science.