> Isotopic signatures and increased carbon in the oceans show that the CO2
> rise today is not from natural feedback.

Puuh, I wonder if these wrong statements will be straightened out . .
- the decrease of pH-value in the near surface sea water in in correspondence to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere
- the C13-depletion shows that we indeed burn fossil fuel
Both say nothing about the reason for the raise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ferdinand made some diagrams with rather long time constants in order to blame the anthropogenic CO2. Others say something like “the natural sinks get smaller” which basically means, that the oceans are changing, otherwise the sinks must get bigger with an increase of atmospheric CO2.
Well, if this is true, you simply cannot blame one source, it is way more complicated.
__
All the best,
LoN

It will be payback for all those unwarranted free-bee Nobel prizes tossed left right and center some years ago. While scientist and believers of the “AGW Titanic” are back peddling and slowly manning the lifeboats, Captain Gore holds the course wishing the iceberg truly melts away…

I don’t know if I’m the right person to answer your question, but here is my take:

1. NO. It’s not a surprise that CO2 is lagging temperature rise and fall on a geological timescale.

2. YES. Increasing CO2 concentration today is probably from anthropogenic sources.

3. YES. The paleoclimate records are very consistent. A rise in CO2 always follows a rise in temperature, and a reduction in CO2 always follows a fall in temperature.

4. YES. The paleoclimate records don’t contradict that the present rise in CO2 may cause increased temperature. However, the records show that this hasn’t happened in the past in a degree that is detectable. The question is, if this is happening at all,
what is the extent of this effect?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html

I’m not blaming you for someone else’s opinion here, Chris. My point was only that either:

1. Your understanding of the NAO is incorrect, or
2. The MWP wasn’t caused by the NAO, since the idea of a cooling Canada and Greenland during that period is contradicted by undisputed historical facts.

FYI, I didn’t read the post by Nasif Nahle (07:37:04) as saying the linked paper supported a global MWP, just that the cause of the MWP is now being discussed. A statement the paper does support, in my opinion. If Nasif Nahle meant to say what you imply, I’m sure he can answer for that himself.

Are you both nuts??

I can’t speak for Mike, but as for me, no.

All I said is that the NOAA study only covers North America, which is true. I’m not sure what global ice anomalies have to do with that.

So, Chris, what does that tell you about the hypothesis that the MWP was caused by NAO?

You should take that up with the guy who originally posted the link; he said it supported a global MWP. FYI- I haven’t read the paper, only the abstract.

I n Canada East and West coasts warm up and cool differently because of different factors affect each differently.
It would appear to me that PDO has a greater impact in the western part of Canada and AMO has the greater effect along the east coast whether warming or cooling. The temperatures of each ocean are also different as are the impact of polar jet streams especially during La Nina’s and El Nino’s.

http://facstaff.unca.edu/chennon/classes/atms223/ppt/climatic_oscillations.ppt#298,44,Slide 44

http://facstaff.unca.edu/chennon/classes/atms223/ppt/climatic_oscillations.ppt#297,43,Slide 43
SINCE 2006-2008[after the report]
CANADIAN NATIONAL ANNUAL TEMP ANOAMLIES DROPPED 1.7C
EAST COAST ANNUAL TEMP. ANOMALIES DROPPED 1.1C
NORTH WEST FORESTANNUAL TEMP. ANOMALY DROPPED 2.0C

SINCE 2006-2008[after the report]
CANADIAN NATIONAL WINTER TEMP ANOAMALIES DROPPED 3.6C
EAST COAST WINTER TEMP ANOMALIES DROPPED 1.8C
NORTHWEST WINTER TEMP ANOMALIES DROPPED 7.1C

So all that two degrees of warming is gone in just a couple of years.

‘It should not at all be surprising that CO2 can “lag” planetary temperature changes.’

The second line of your response(and the essence of it)
Yeah, the ‘relationship’ is that rises in CO2 follow temperature rises.

So I’ll ask again. Do you have anything of substance to respond to this statement by Chris Colose?

MikeN: “…your responses do not respond to what I posted.”

Are you both nuts??

I quoted what each of you wrote. Verbatim. Word for word. In blockquotes. Then I posted my response to exactly what each of you had said.

You kids need to take an aspirin and lie down. You’re not making sense.

As is your habit, you’re responding to things I never said.

The NOAA study does just deal with North America, so you can’t extrapolate their conclusions to the rest of the world (as other posters have done).