På tal om CO2, Is data visar CO2 värden av 300-348 ppm för 9400-9600 år sedan.

"The reconstructed CO2 record shows a fluctuating pattern (Fig. 2). Inferred CO2 minima with averages of ≈275 ppm by volume (ppmv) occur at ≈8,680 years B.P. and between ≈8,430 and ≈8,040 years B.P.; prominent maxima with values of 300–325 ppmv occur at ≈8,640 years B.P. and between ≈7,920 and ≈7,270 years B.P. The series of low CO2 concentrations around 8,300 years B.P. follow a declining trend of ≈25 ppmv within a time interval of <100 years. This interval ends with a return to levels >300 ppmv after ≈300 years. Timing and duration of the century-scale CO2 excursion are in harmony with the proxy records for the 8.2-ka-B.P. cooling event embracing a period of 200–300 years between ≈8,400 and ≈8,100 years B.P."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/arti ... 9&rendertype=figure&id=f2

Läs mer här:
Kemister underkänner CO2-analyser
http://www.chemicalnet.se/iuware.aspx?pageid=792&ssoid=72711
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

Baltiska sjön har inte blivit uppvärmd och ligger på 1930 värden.

The Baltic Sea area has very few long-term stations in the GHCN database – and most are urban. The Baltic Sea area is interesting since it is a sea in the northern hemisphere with the countries to the north reaching the Arctic Circle. According to the CO2 theory, this mid-to-high latitude location is the area where the warming should be most pronounced. However, the area is not exhibiting warming that exceeds the 1930s, and thus does not match the models http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_baltic_files/image004.gif

“It appears that the late twentieth century warming in the Baltic Sea region cannot be determined to be unprecedented over the past 500 years, as the mid-eighteenth century warming is of comparable magnitude.
From 1935 to the present no statistically significant water temperature trend can be determined.”
(Hansson, D. and A. Omstedt. 2007: “Modelling the Baltic Sea Ocean Climate on Centennial Time Scale: Temperature and Sea Ice”, Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0321-2)

488-443 miljoner år sedan var CO2 värdet hela 4200 ppm medans det var en is tid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Här ser man hur Antarktis temperatur börjar att ändra sig först och sedan svarar CO2 800 år senare, även methane följer efter uppvärmningen.
http://www.john-daly.com/press/lag-time.gif

19,000-17,000 år sedan, ökade den djupa havstemperaturen med två Celsius. 1,000 år senare ökade CO2.

"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1

Fler studier:

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO₂ concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO₂ decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al. (1999) decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO₂ concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that it cannot possibly be the cause.

On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air's CO₂ content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO₂ data obtained from high time resolution samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 BP (which covers the last glacial-to-interglacial transition) Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO₂ increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO₂ concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.

In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration by about 3,000 years. Once more the order of events confounds the greens: a shift in carbon dioxide levels cannot 'cause' a temperature rise that happened 3,000 years earlier.

The most recent study available covering this theme is that of Caillon et al. (2003)†, who focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO₂ shifts and climate change. Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III - which occurred 240,000 years BP - were studied. The result of their painstaking analysis was that "the CO₂ increase lagged behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years." This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., confirms that CO₂ is not the forcing that drives the climatic system. Anthropogenic climate change (man-made global warming theory), based on the claimed impact of CO₂ emissions from transport and industry, is stone cold dead.

Quote:

Det är den tunna isen som har ökat. Den tjocka isen har krymt:

http://www.alltomvetenskap.se/arktis- ... rtunnas.aspx?article=4028

Data från 2009.

Dom senaste åren har is som sagt växit fram i rekordfart (inom ett par månader kommer säkert nya rekord). Is smälter alltid och det bevisar inte att vi är inne i en global uppvärmning, om vi var inne i en sån allvarlig global uppvärmning som politikerna vill få en att tro, så borde dom senaste åren inte ha get oss rekord värden. Isen har växt stabilt och ökat sig dom senaste 30 åren, där har inte vairt någon trend där mycket har krympt år efter år. östra delen av antarktis är fyra gånger större än västra och i den östra delen har det blivit kallare. konstigt att det blir kallare om CO2 teorin stämmer.

"The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

Det finns alltså inga bevis,

Havsnivåerna har inte ökat.

Isen är stabil och har i många år växt fram i rekordfart.

Länder världen runt har haft deras kallaste väder och vintrar på 60-100 år.

Hav som borde vara uppvärmda om CO2 teorin stämmer är inte uppvärmda.

Värden är inte inne i en global uppvärmning och har inte haft någon uppvärmning sen 1998.

CO2 har aldrig styrt klimatet, temperaturen har alltid ökat först och sedan många år senare har CO2 ökat. och förr i tiden har CO2 värdena varit lika höga och högre än dom idag.

Sen ska man inte glömma att hoss IPCC bestäms politiken först sedan får vetenskapen anpassa sig till detta. Det handlar om att få mer makt över oss och att sätta nya skatter och att få oss att se på oss själva som ett problem så att folk tycker det är okej med populations kontroll.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers were caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself . -The First Global Revolution. published by the Council of the Club of Rome, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1991, Pantheon Books, p. 115."