wuwt post

Why do people assume that because a green house gas is increasng then so should temperature follow this increase exactly?

The GHE is small but insidious.

Look on it as a drip of water entering a jacuzzi with no safety overflow – if the jacuzzi is switched off then a slow rise in water height can be measured. Switch on the turbulance. Does this stop the drip?
The water level will now move up and down at random but – if you measure the height you may decide that the water level is flat or even falling – but is the total volume really static?
Can you leave it dripping an go away for a year? Or will it eventually overflow id the jacuzzi is off orON?

I have made a totally nonscientific, non-predictive simulation of hadcrut3v temperatures using sine waves. This shows that a 60year cycle is on its way down and this is more than capable of holding the temperature increase due to GHGs – BUT the GHG effect is still there and on the next upswing the temperature starts to rise wit a vegance.
the plot is here:

but remeber this is simply showing that an underlying trend can be masked by a sinusoid with no trend – it is not meant to predict temperatures!!
All the figures for this are availble as a spreadsheet.

Just because temperatures and GHG levels do not follow each other does not mean that the undelying temperature trend does not match the insiduous drip, drip, drip of a trend caused increasing GHGs.

This is not rocket science. It is just logical!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: