You're completely wrong. You have no idea how to read a simple graph. Why are you capturing an image of the red and blue line at different points in time? You need to find a point on the blue line, then go DOWN to see if the red line is rising or not.
No, I'm completely right. As temperature rises, CO2 follows. That's why the CO2 line is to the right. It lags. Even the alarmists acknowledge this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years.
Discussion of the math tricks (how you set the scales on the two graphs): http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated. It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.
Perhaps you are in error with 97% . I sort of like to go from Scripps since I did a bit of work there myself. Woods Hole does good work too. I picked up some info from Scripps that maybe of interest. Micro view Macro view Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ Maybe not. Surely not 97% for sure.
100% of scientists agree that water boils at 212 F. Facts aren't up for debate. When can we start a thread about the boiling water deniers? Are there any?
Did anyone else catch NPR report yesterday about a NOAA study that showed year to date the planet has been cooler as well as wetter?
All part of GCC. You see they have that covered now, easy, just change GW to GCC. Everything fits the narritive of the model.
However you want to think about DC. I know you think any expert that doesn't agree with you manipulates data or uses manipulated data but experts that agree with you do not manipulate data or use maculated data. To be fair, most probably feel that way. Answer seems clear me . . . but doesn't matter. No one is going to change someones mind here because truth is no one here is an expert and we are just regurgitating what experts we believe. I guess you also think the consensus term is manipulated . . . so the discussion on this topic is going no where.
