It’s looking the CO2 temperature lag-time has been cut down dramatically.
Think any AGW “skeptics” will notice?

2012-07-23
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/

The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.
{...}

It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
{...}

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

psik

I guess they’ve figured out how to make more money out of global warming than by denying it.

Occam

DarronS - 31 July 2012 06:30 AM

wouldn’t that be fun

good one  

psikeyhackr - 30 July 2012 01:22 PM

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

psik

Yea I saw that and passed it on at the other place.
Turns out Muller jumped the gun. 
Now I’m starting to think he was in a race with Anthony Watt’s to announce world shattering results.  Now both of them are looking a bit foolish.

More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies prematurely rushed and potentially flawed
By Jason Samenow
Posted 07/31/2012

Furthermore, given the serious accusations Watts et al. make about the integrity of NOAA’s temperature analysis, it’s critical NOAA be given the opportunity to respond just as they did the last time Watts issued such a challenge in 2009. NOAA’s U.S. temperature record has been painstakingly constructed by many scientists over many years and many peer-reviewed publications support its methodologies. . .
{...}

and then this update, I’m off to do some more reading, cheers pals.

UPDATE, 10 p.m.: The New York Times Andrew Revkin has received an initial reaction from NOAA on Watts’ claims. See his blog post: A Closer Look at Climate Studies Promoted Before Publication. Also, my colleague Brad Plumer has an interesting take on the value of peer review. See his post: Two climate papers get hyped first, reviewed later. Isn’t that a bad idea?

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/watts-et-al-clunk.html

Jason Samenow’s article of the previous day is even more interesting:

  Posted at 10:15 AM ET, 07/30/2012
So-called blockbuster climate change studies prove little
By Jason Samenow
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/so-called-blockbuster-climate-change-studies-prove-little/2012/07/30/gJQAZZNMKX_blog.html

Over the weekend, two groups released so-called “game-changing” climate change studies.

The first, led by “converted skeptic” University of California-Berkeley professor Richard Muller, claims almost all of the warming observed in modern times is due to human activities. The second, led by blogger Anthony Watts, in an apparent attempt to diminish the impact of the Muller paper, argues warming in the U.S. since 1979 is about half the amount calculated by NOAA.

Both studies staged high-profile releases and represent concerted efforts to influence public perception about what we know about climate science. But neither has been published in a peer-reviewed publication and there is cause to question their legitimacy.

Finally found a thread where I could squeeze this in.

Over at SkepticalScience.com they have a new post with a list of an assortment of anthropogenic global warming “skeptics”
acknowledging atmospheric CO2’s influence and the validity of the so-called greenhouse theory.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Posted on 5 December 2012 by Daniel Bailey
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The_Greenhouse_Gas_Effect_All-Star_Fan_Club.html

It’s odd that folks can claim to understand the greenhouse theory and satellite’s measurements of our planet’s radiative budget, yet at the same stand along side folks loudly proclaiming there has been no global warming - and not correct their illusion.

so sad, so much wasted time.

Behold the power of belief perseverance!