CO2 Correlates to Temperature not at all

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895 (pdf)
Significant problems have been identified in numerous recent peer review studies (most recent here) for the global data bases (GISS, GHCN, CRU) which may result that they may have overestimated the warming the last century by 30-50%. These issues include station dropout, missing data, siting issues and insufficient or even no adjustment for urbanization. This makes them unusable or even unreliable for trend analysis. I have preferred to work with the USHCN data from the United States which at least is stable and has much less missing data and made adjustments for changes in the time of observation, instrumentation, any documented siting changes and at least until the latest version, urbanization (Karl 1988 ). The work of Pielke and Watts and others have shown issues with siting still remain, but still this data set is superior to the global.
USHCN Version 2
data became available in recent months which has replaced the Karl urbanization adjustment and siting adjustments with a ‘change point detection algorithm’ that NCDC` believes will better identify previously undocumented inhomogeneities. In this analysis, I will look at the data trends and show how they are cyclical in nature and show little long time trends. The cycles in the temperatures correlate far better with solar and multidecadal ocean cycles.
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have
correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

The Oceans’ Role in Seasonal and Longer Term Climate (pdf)
Why the recent cooling is likely just the start
Although, I believe ultimately the sun is the primary driver for the changes to global climate, the oceans may provide the mechanisms for the changes on year-to-year to multidecadal time scales. In a prior analysis, we had shown how the sun and oceans correlated better with US temperature changes than carbon dioxide over the last century. The oceans had the strongest correlation. In this analysis, we will present evidence for how and why the oceans affect temperatures.

Thermal Property Differences between Land and Water
The oceans warm and cool much slower than land for a number of reasons.
(1) The sun is able to warm only the thin upper surface of the land directly while it may penetrate many meters into the ocean
(2) The ocean like the air but unlike land is subject to vertical mixing and convective movements.
(3) The thermal capacity of the oceans is much higher because the water is considerably denser and has roughly four times the specific heat (the amount of heat required to warm a given volume 1 degree Celsius) as most land surfaces.

This is why land warms more and much faster than the ocean in the spring and cools more and faster in the fall.
One consequence of the ocean's ability to absorb more heat is that when an area of ocean becomes warmer or cooler than usual, it takes much longer for that area to revert to "normal" than it would for a land area.
Also because of the huge discrepancy in volumetric thermal capacities, the influence of water on air is very much greater and more immediate than air on water. A change in atmospheric temperatures might take decades to affect the oceans, but the flip of an anomaly of an ocean pool of water has an almost immediate effect on the air.
The ocean indices and the Total Solar Irradiance correlated better
than CO2 for the last century. The correlation of temperatures with CO2 vanished in the last decade.
Discussed at Icecap. 24th Feb

The Independent
By Andrew Grice Political Editor
(h/t's blog)
The Government will today anger environmentalists by signalling its support for a controversial new generation of coal-fired power stations and warning that Britain needs to burn more fossil fuels to prevent power cuts.
John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business, will say that "clean coal" has a crucial role to play in filling Britain's energy gap for the future. He will accuse the green lobby of "gesture politics" by opposing any coal-fired plants, putting energy supplies at risk and presenting a false "black and white" choice to the public over coal.
Mr Hutton, the cabinet minister responsible for energy, will speak about the future of coal for the first time at a speech to the free market Adam Smith Institute in London.
But his speech is bound to raise questions about government environmental policy just two days before the the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, tries to reassure the green lobby by raising taxes on gas-guzzling vehicles.
Mr Hutton's remarks will be seen as a clear sign that the Government will approve plans to build Britain's first coal-fired power station since 1984 at Kingsnorth, Kent.
Green campaigners view the £1bn proposal as a vital test of the Government's commitment to the environment. The energy company E.ON UK wants to demolish an outdated plant and replace it with two units using cleaner coal to supply 1.5 million homes by 2012.
The firm claimed it would cut carbon emissions by nearly two million tones a year and could be a ground-breaking "clean coal" plant, with the carbon emitted stored under the North Sea.
etc ~
Within seven years one of the world's first commercial-scale clean coal demonstrator plants could be up and running in the UK, generating electricity from coal with up to 90 per cent less carbon emitted.
Full report here.

At last Brown's government (at least a bit of it) is seeing the light. While they are at it, perhaps they could do something about banning the use of alcohol from palm oil for fuel and help preserve the planet's lungs and alcohol from corn and soy and end 25% price increases (with more increases on the way) so avoiding food riots (already happening in Mexico, India and elsewhere)
The enviro-nuts of course want the grand kids to freeze and starve while enjoying the "benefits" of low carbon dioxide (free fertilizer) air.

Everyone's a fruit and nut case

Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
Full report here.

Climate tsar: Put wind farms along motorways
Charles Clover, Environment Editor
A new generation of wind farms should be built along motorways and outside every school to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, Gordon Brown's new climate change "tsar" has told the Telegraph.
Lord Turner, head of the Government's Committee on Climate Change, warned that Britain might have to do radically more, and sooner than expected, to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

Warmed-over nukes.
Another welcome kick in the teeth for the green monster reported by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, March 8, 2008
The world is whooshing to nuclear energy. Just this week, Britain announced 18 new nuclear reactor sites in its bid to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is on a Mid-East nuclear-selling spree, to cash in on interest in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, and Libya.
The Netherlands has lifted its long-standing opposition to nuclear power – even the Environment Minister touts the advantages of next-generation reactors. In Eastern Europe, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia all are pursuing the atom.
The United States is revving up for its nuclear renaissance, too. For three decades, nuclear power was in retreat south of the border, with not one new reactor ordered and completed since the reactor accident at Three Mile Island. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now reviewing four applications for new reactors and it expects another 15 by year-end.

Sadly, the truth is nuclear is hugely expensive, inefficient and dirty. Clean (British) coal is the way to go till fusion or some other clean power comes along. Read Solomon's article for the full dirt. Imagine how cheap it would be if the inane carbon capture nonsense was dumped.

Reuters' report

I don't use ads, this one is here because it's very funny!