New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″

New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″ Anthony Watts proclaims the deliciousness of a new paper by Paulo (not a climatologist) Cesar Soares in the brand-new International Journal of Geosciences, part of the Scientific Research Publishing “empire” (click on that link!), where all the cool papers will now be published. Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes tells us that no correlation exists between CO2 and global temperature, so it must be… something else. Why? Because the response to CO2 variations isn’t instant.

Temperature went up... because there was more water in the air. Or did something happen? Thanks for the blog science, IJG.

Is Soares really trying to tell us that the “correlation” proves that increased atmospheric water is producing warmth? If Anthony buys it, well, maybe we should stop picking on the little rascal…

I’ll leave today’s rebuttal to Greenfyre’s Flimsy post:

For any that think it matters, the paper basically correlates regional weather with solar variation, PDO etc, and then calls it climate.

It’s really too silly to waste any time on, so naturally the Denialosphere will be announcing it as “the final coffin nail” (again).

8 thoughts on “New paper – “absence of correlation between temperature changes … and CO2″

  1. To their credit, some of the commenters were concerned that this key paper was published in a “new journal” that has very weak copy editing which seems “bogus.” This publisher has at least two journals called “American Journal of..” as in American Journal of Plant Sciences, even though these journals have mostly Asian editorial boards and are unrelated to American societies.

  2. With a critique like that, the little credibility you have diminishes even further.

    [Your comment however, is a devastating critique. You have shamed me! Shamed! Me! – Ben]

      • Shaming you was sufficient Ben, but keep biting if you haven’t yet placated your ego. So easily baited aren’t you.

        [Wow, are you “The Puppet-master”? – Ben]

  3. I’ve got you on a string haven’t I Ben. Try to relax. Being nothing more than a “wanna be” is ok mate, don’t feel the need to defend yourself. Just trundle off now, copy and paste another persons post, add your two lines of unscientific crass opinion, and delude yourself into thinking you’re contributing something of value.

    Say what you will, you only demean yourself more by continuing to bite. Have a nice day!

    [What an ego. Enjoy your life in the dunce bin. – Ben]

      • I’m well aware of the difference. I’m no more an amateur than you. Surely you are not suggesting there is no connection between the two. If climate models predict certain changed conditions over a period of time in a specific region as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but recorded weather conditions over that period of time consistently do not reflect these conditions, should we just dismiss it? Nothing to see here. Or should we analyse it and try to find an explanation to better understand the science?
        Simply stating that weather isn’t climate might be fine for a specific weather event, but do you really think we have to wait for a 30year period of recorded weather before we can assess what is actually occurring? Climate is weather averaged over time. While it may be a useful concept for weather prediction, any attempts to be more specific are artificial and in all likely-hood agenda biased.
        Unlike Anthony Watts or your friend Ben, I have not made up my mind on AGW. That’s why I read what everyone has to say. But I do get peeved when both sides summarily dismiss anything new that might not fit their own beliefs. That’s what Ben did in this instance, and I expressed my dissatisfaction accordingly.

        [“The Rat” drops the adolescent arrogance in order to squirm out of the dunce bin, and is now a dispassionate professional… And I was waiting for the coy Harry Harrison self-reference.

        So what was “new” in the Soares paper that Anthony found so useful? Seriously. All I see is statistical hocus pocus.

        Real scientists are learning more about our climate and the mechanisms that drive it all the time, sometimes in ways that challenge current thinking. When they learn, I learn. For instance, the “travesty” that Kevin Trenberth mentioned and has been twisted into a denialist attack is actually a fascinating area of investigation. But when Anthony repeats the same bogus talking point for the hundredth time he gets the laugh track. – Ben]

  4. Stop being such a cry baby Ben. No wonder the sum total comments for your last dozen posts (excluding mine) doesn’t reach double figures. I guess very few people read your blog, and fewer still care what you have to say. I stumbled upon it, and won’t be back. You are a five star wanker! Cry on baby, cry on…

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s