What happens to AGW theory when CO2 and Temperature measurements no longer correlate?

Oh and they will update the models to fit their theories. That nasa.giss (whatever it is) site never seems to match any other sites that list temperature and CO2 graphs. That tamino files site is ran by some individual. How do we know that individual has accurate data? Does this individual have equipment set up all over the world to monitor the climate? I don't see any credentials listed on that person's site? Basically, they will adjust their theories and data to fit the argument. The AGW argument is losing steam.

Oh yeah, using the temperature trend of 1941-1990 as the ideal global temperature is completely flawed itself, considering it was much cooler then because the rebound from the "LIA". The Little Ice Age ended when the cooling trend ended. It slowly started to warm up again, hence the 1.1 degree F difference between 1880 and today (128 years). But the climate of today is still much cooler (by about 2 degrees C) than normal climate that has existed for millions (probably billions) of years (between ice ages). We still have those 2 degrees to go before I would start worrying. Mankind made huge advancements during the Middle Ages when it was much warmer than the current climate. Maybe this will happen again, as long as everyone isn't scared into hysteria over the planet returning to its normal temperature.

Oh yeah, anyone who has taken a statistics course knows how to manipulate a chart.

As we all know, during the 1960s and 1970s the Earth cooled rapidly, sparking fears of a new Ice Age. This was while man's industry was pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

The liars have been exposed, the media just won't mention it.

There is some correlation, however. Once a warming period begins to melt off ice age glaciation, warming oceans release CO2 after about an 800 year lag. Then the Earth becomes GREEN and ALIVE for a while until the next ice age comes along to crush the land under deadly glaciers.

Let's be thankful we were born during one of the warm spells. Life in the shadow of a glacier truly sucks.

They wont let that get in the way of their beliefs.

CO2 has already been shown to follow temperature rise, not the other way around, and they still charge ahead.

The only thing that will turn around that way of thinking is time and when their doom and gloom predictions don't come true people will see the theory for the farce that it is, just like the 70's ice age scare.

I only hope that the knee jerk policy changes don't seriously damage our standard of living before they come back to reality.

They have never correlated and CO2 is dictated by temperature after about 800 years.... CO2 is NOT ALL THAT!

Speak is ABSOLUTELY right and all of these global warming alarmists and deniers are too young to realize that they are being scammed.

Alarmists keep patting themselves on the back and referring to Wikipedia.

Actually, they never did correlate that well.

They still correlate, on average.

This is just one short period, carefully "cherry-picked", which distorts the data. Here's the real thing.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

discussed in detail, with confirmation, at:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-h...

As long as we keep making greenhouse gases in enormous amounts, global warming will dominate in the long run. It's simple physics.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/gre...

Your argument is based on a 10 year period. Want to see what it looks like over the long-term?

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600p...

You're failing to differentiate between signal and noise, short-term and long-term.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asraw...

In fact, even if there were a 10-year cooling period, it would not mean that the long-term cooling trend had stopped, as proven by Tamino at Open Mind with a simple test:

"I decided to generate artificial data to mimic this, so I created a time series of 100 years length which is the sum of a signal plus noise: the signal consists of a steady trend at a rate of 0.018 deg.C/yr, the noise is random numbers with standard deviation 0.1 deg.C. Then I chose one of the values that had a particularly large positive random part and called that the year “1998″ in order to match the record-setting temperature actually observed on earth in 1998. Finally I shifted all the values by a constant, so the data would be on the same scale as actual temperature data. Using this artificial data, here’s what the modern global warming era looks like:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/art1.jpg

What if we looked only at data from the 1998 peak to the present? Now it looks like this:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/art2.jpg

Oh my God!!! Suddenly we have “no global warming since 1998″!!! Linear regression actually indicates cooling at a rate of -0.007 deg.C/yr!!!

But we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal."