NCAR Graph Exposes The Core Of Global Warming Fraud

Climate alarmism can’t exist without a fundamental misinterpretation of ice core data, as seen in this exhibit at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Antarctic Ice core records show that historically there has been a close correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. What NCAR doesn’t mention is that the relationship has broken down over the past century. There has been a large increase in atmospheric CO2, but no corresponding temperature spike in the ice core records.

In fact, the head of NASA’s climate studies reported in 2004 that Antarctic temperatures had cooled significantly. CO2 and temperatures have diverged.

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Shindell and Schmidt 2004

What this tells us is that CO2 does not drive temperature. The relationship in the ice core records over the last 800,000 years is the exact opposite – temperature drives CO2.  An increase in temperature of 10C produces a change in atmospheric CO2 of ~100 PPM.  Every geologist and beer drinker knows this. As oceans warm, they outgas CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate alarmism depends on putting the cart before the horse and misleading the public about this topic. This deception is essential for maintaining the climate scam, and was so important that Al Gore and Laurie David actually reversed the scale of the X-Axis in order to defraud children in her school textbook.

Her fraudulent graph made CO2 change before temperature, instead of the actual relationship which is the exact opposite.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to NCAR Graph Exposes The Core Of Global Warming Fraud

  1. Rud Istvan says:

    Henry’s law in physical chemistry is hard to escape.

    • Sean says:

      There is more than Henry’s law at work for CO2 release from the oceans. CO2 is tied up in the oceans as calcium and magnesium bicarbonate. As water warms in the tropics, the bicarbonate breaks down to limestone and CO2. So the minerals in seawater increase its solubility in cold water while releasing half the CO2 and sequestering the other half in carbonate rock when it the warm tropics. I suspect these mineral changes are responsible for the large changes in CO2 concentration when the earth warms.

  2. AZ1971 says:

    I’ve been arguing with idiots on several websites like and about the physics of CO2 LWIR back radiation, since they like to claim Arrhenius and Tyndall “proved” its greenhouse gas functions. I then point out the Vostok ice core data—that the CO2 level lags that of temperature—and does so by at least a few hundred to thousands of years. I ask these tools why, if the physics of LWIR back radiation are immediate, what causes the delay. We should be seeing a rapid and immediate global temperature increase now with the increase in atmospheric CO2, but we don’t.

    The only response I inevitably get is “the heat is going into the oceans” and something to the effect of “the global temperature hasn’t gone up yet because we haven’t reached equilibrium in the Stefan-Boltzmann law”. In other words, it’s not physics that is being relied on but faith because physics of back radiation is immediate yet the effects are not and don’t become so until they say it does.

    • Squidly says:

      Perhaps you should (as I have) ask them the question of why CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. Or why Argon is used for insulation in double glazed windows instead of CO2. The answer is the same reason why CO2 cannot cause additional heating in our atmosphere, and in fact acts a very negligible coolant. The answer: very high emissivity. As the physics shows us, the higher the emissivity, the greater the cooling, and vice-versa.

      Or perhaps you might ask them how an object (the surface and source of the LWIR) can heat itself. Can they demonstrate any other substance in the universe that is capable of doing this? .. Or perhaps ask them how CO2 can magically violate the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, allowing it to (a) create more energy than is entering the atmosphere, and (b) allowing a cooler object (the atmosphere) warm further still a warmer object (the surface). The typical answer you will hear from them is “the surface doesn’t know what kind of photon is hitting it”, completely ignoring wavelength and molecular energy state.

      Or ask them why your cup of coffee doesn’t continue to get hotter than the coffee in the pot as you pour more coffee into your cup. If the so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” (RGHE) were possible, then your cup of coffee would continue to get hotter the more you poured into it. Or you could feel the heat from your face upon your face as you stare into a mirror. Two candles next to each other would heat each other until they both exploded.

      The very foundation and premise of the RGHE is simply impossible in this universe. It could not be otherwise. If you think about it deeply enough, you quickly come to the realization that our very universe could not exist if a RGHE were possible. Not to mention that we would have limitless supplies of energy without having to do a thing.

      • RW says:

        The crux of the idea is that long-wave back radiation slows the rate of cooling…the planet is cooling less quickly. It hangs on to IR for longer which presumably translates into hanging on to kinetic energy for longer. I’ve never really understood the argument that is put out there in various forms. Questions like how much more kinetic energy this process ends up ‘conserving’ in the system are never addressed with a mechanistic answer and prediction. I haven’t seen any real answer to a question like how much added energy is there and what fraction is predicted vs. observed to be converted to kinetic energy.

        I haven’t seen a rebuttal to a fairly ordinary question about how the thickness and density of a planet’s atmosphere, any planet, in combination with its distance to the sun and the angle of insolation cannot explain the vast majority of temperatures from planet to planet.

        I have also seen thoughtful responses which have said that pretty much any gas you can put into the atmosphere will absorb some part of the spectrum, and that even ‘non-GHG’ gasses possess absorption bands in the IR lengths. I could be misremembering, but I think it was Argon that the response mentioned specifically, a gas typically used as a ‘control’. The bottom line being that the whole notion of a select few gasses being evil ‘GHG’ was bogus.

      • AndyG55 says:

        A study was done using different gases between double glazing.
        (people can hunt for it themselves)

        CO2 had LESS effect than normal air.

        Because of its radiative properties, it CONDUCTS heat more readily.

        Then of course there is the re-emission time of atmospheric CO2, which in the lower atmosphere is a couple of magnitudes SLOWER than the collisional time.

        Hence all absorbed LW energy is immediately thermalised to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, and dealt with as any other LW radiation is.

  3. Al Keiser says:

    WHAT A RELIEF, to actually see the thermodynamic facts presented on the internet! Here’s another really basic fact, unknown by the gullible: basic “specific heat” numbers — if you had a heat source which could raise the temp of one cubic foot of air by one degree in one year, it would take that same heat source 3,300 years to raise a cubic foot of water by one degree. But, hey, legitimate climatologists have always known that the oceans, not the atmosphere, determine the macro-climate. We are a “water world”.

  4. Robert Bourke says:

    Tony, another point that often seems to be missed here is that they appear to have created a “hockey stick” by adding the “big CO2 spike”, that is a high resolution data set stitched onto the end of a very low resolution data set.

    The ice core CO2 measurements seem to have an accuracy of about plus/minus 50% and show very little variation whereas the current CO2 measurements have an accuracy down to two decimal places.

    This is the same as Michael Mann did with the pine tree rings and I believe the IPCC has been doing for a long time with the CO2 graph.

  5. GW Smith says:

    But I thought “adjusting” the data improved it’s accuracy…. To which ends?

  6. Squidly says:

    More than 72% of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans that average a depth of more than 4 kilometers. Just the top 3 meters of ocean contain more CO2 than all of the atmosphere above it. You could dissolve all of the atmospheric CO2 into the oceans and you wouldn’t drop the average pH by even 0.0001 mole fraction. Essentially, the change in ocean pH would be undetectable. Our oceans contain a staggering amount of CO2, not to mention the billions of tons of calcium carbonates (as noted by Sean above). An uptick of a mere 100pm isn’t even a tiny burp of from our oceans.

    • And yet, acidification caused by CO2 pollution is destroying coral reefs. So something is wrong with your numbers.

      “Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.”

      • tonyheller says:

        Utter nonsense

      • AndyG55 says:

        “And yet, acidification caused by CO2 pollution is destroying coral reefs”

        Absolute BS for the TOTALLY GULLIBLE !!

        There is absolutely NO WAY they could hav emeasured the ocean pH to 1/10 unit .

        They can’t even do it now except in very localised areas with very specialised equipment.

        The ocean is NOWHERE NEAR neutral, let alone acidic.

        It is HIGHLY BUFFERED and already holds 98% of the ocean/atmosphere free CO2.

        Corals actually “correct” their local pH to make it less basic to allow for calcite production.

        Why do these IGNORANT BRAIN-WASHED FOOLS even bother coming here with their ANTI-SCIENCE propaganda BS.

      • AndyG55 says:

        As for your link….

        If the utter scientific nonsense of putting empty shells in “projected pH” water, with no buffering, doesn’t wake you up to their ANTI-SCIENCE idiocy…..

        …. then you beyond mental assistance.

        Modelled garbage, and a dopey, ignorant experiment.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And when you see statements like this…

        “this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity”

        .. you KNOW you are dealing with the lowest of the base-level propaganda garbage… aimed at the scientifically illiterate AGW sympathiser.

        From the current pH level, even if this wasn’t based on suppository non-measurements, it would still require a further approx. 2000% change in hydrogen ion concentration to even become neutral.


        The whole “acidification” FARCE is a load of bollocks. !!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        To call any decrease in alkalinity of sea water “acidification” is like calling the increase of temperature of ice from -30 °C to – 29°C “melting”.

        Experts like you get on the internet and write this:

        Quick Answer
        The pH of seawater can vary between 5.0 and 9.0. The closer the seawater is to 7.0, the more neutral the water is for sea life. If the seawater becomes acidic or alkaline, it can become uninhabitable for marine life.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          And to call a 50 ppmv increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide “CO2 pollution” is childish ignorance.

          Before you managed to type the above nonsense you breathed out many times and every single time the air coming out of your lungs contained around 40,000 ppmv CO2.

          Get educated or get stuffed.

  7. Richard Greene says:

    After 20 years reading about climate science
    and politics, I don’t see the ice core studies as
    important climate propaganda tools.

    The most important propaganda is those
    government bureaucrat climate modelers,
    making wrong wild guess predictions of the
    future climate, with their computer games.

    In recent years, the annual announcement
    that one year was a few hundredths of a degree
    warmer than the prior year, along with the
    “HOTTEST year evah” headlines that follow,
    is working well).

    Character attacks stop all debate on
    whether CO2 controls the climate (It doesn’t)
    and the runaway warming fairy tale.

    I thought the original ice core analyses
    did not show enough detail,
    so the CO2 peaks and temperature peaks
    looked simultaneous.

    But … later analyses in more detail
    — seems like 10 years ago —
    showed that CO2 peaks
    followed temperature peaks
    500 to 1,000 years later.

    I agree that ice core studies
    are used as a proxy for for CO2 levels
    by the warmunists,
    but not as a proxy for temperatures,
    probably because of that minor issue
    of temperature peaks leading CO2 peaks.

    Are you saying the warmunists
    are still claiming ice core CO2 peaks
    and temperature peaks
    happen at the same time?

    Whatever the answer,
    I don’t agree that ice core studies
    are the “core of global warming fraud”.

    I also know from past experience
    that you Mr. Heller, don’t react well
    to people whose comments
    disagree with you,
    in the Donald Trump style,
    that seems to work for him,
    but that won’t stop me
    from commenting
    — it’s your blood pressure
    that goes up if you get angry !

    I see “climate fraud” as a political game
    with the only supporting science
    being simple lab experiments that suggest
    +1 degree of warming from the greenhouse gas
    of CO2 doubling.

    And that +1 degree
    may be somewhere close to reality,
    or maybe not — there’s nothing in
    the temperature measurements to
    prove CO2 has any effect.

    But +1 degrees per doubling was not scary
    — so the water vapor feedback theory
    was invented out of thin air …
    … allowing +3 degrees to be used
    to scare people
    … and when that started losing it’s effect,
    the +2 degrees C. tipping point
    was invented out of thin air
    to scare people more.

    It’s all a leftist political game for
    growing the government —
    — I call it “Save the Earth Socialism”,
    based on junk science — the earth
    doesn’t need saving — I see the
    current climate as the best for humans
    and animals in hundreds of years.

    The only problem with our climate ,
    besides the bellowing warmunists,
    is not enough CO2 in the air
    for optimum growth of plants
    humans and animals use for food.

  8. Hocker is claiming that his model shows that the long-term upward trend in CO2 is explained by temperature, when his methods actually removed the long-term trend.

    This is where the previously-mentioned alert readers will be nodding their heads and saying “Yes! We knew it!” The error that Hocker makes – taking the derivative of a time series to remove its long-term trend, then correlating a second data set with this derivative, and finally claiming the second data set explains the long-term trend – is exactly the same error that was recently discovered in a prominent “skeptical” paper by McLean 2009. McLean correlated an index of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation with the first derivative of temperature, while Hocker correlates temperature with the first derivative of CO2 concentration.

    What else can be said about this subject? Well, it is true that the solubility of CO2 in seawater is a function of temperature, and all else being equal, as the ocean warms it will give off CO2 to the atmosphere. And in fact this is the mechanism by which a CO2 feedback amplified the temperature swings during the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial cycles. But in today’s world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. This is known from decades of oceanographic surveys that show the oceans are a “sink” rather than a source of CO2 in the atmosphere (Takahashi 2009, Sabine 2004).

    It’s also interesting to note that climate scientists have known for at least three decades that short-term fluctuations in temperature (e.g., those associated with the ENSO cycle) are correlated with short-term fluctuations in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (Bacastow and Keeling 1981). Section of the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 report discusses this in some detail.

    • tonyheller says:

      Utter nonsense

    • AndyG55 says:

      ROFLMAO, Kevin, You HAVE to be joking

      As soon as you link to SkS you show yourself as an ignorant fool that is openly GULLIBLE to any AGW propaganda pap that they throw your way.

      Get some knowledge of your own, think for yourself, if you have the ability….., rather than copy/paste the idiocy of the SkS cartoonist site.

      Be very glad that humans are in some small part responsible for enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels.

      That CO2 is needed for ALL LIFE ON EARTH, and has been woefully low for a very long time.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Kevin why do warmists try so hard to ignore the IPCC published Per Decade warming rate?

      It is supposed to warm .30C per decade yet never reached .20C in ANY decade.

      CO2 have very little impact on temperature increase at the 400 ppm level.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    From those zig-zag graphs , it should be noted that maximum CO2 level was ALWAYS coincided with falling temperature.

    At NO POINT IN TIME was peak CO2 able to even maintain the temperature rise that caused the release of CO2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *