Atmospheric CO2 during June 2006 was 384 ppm. June 2013 was 399 ppm. So 15 ppm of CO2 had no warming effect?
NOAA reports:
June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest June across global land and ocean surfaces, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).
Temperature records at land-based weather stations are meaningless for so many reasons: NOAA adjusts the historical data, a majority of the stations are inappropriately sited too close to an artificial heat source, urban encroachment on existing stations, stations in remote (i.e., cooler stations) have been shut down in favor of warmer urban stations, records do not compare data from the same station or set of stations, …
Hey, I was fifth in my age group at the annual shooting event this year. There were five of us. That really happened.
15ppm out of 380-400 would not be likely to have a measurable warming effect, no.
There’s a lot of chatter going on still that recent years are 8th, 10th, or thereabouts in the record.
First, “in the record” is a pretty short sampling and began during a recovery from a recognized cold period.
Second, the claimed warming is still very small and there’s been a drawback from the peak warming.
Third, if CO2 was the primary driver, and if it kept going up from both human and natural sources, and if temps did not keep going up, then CO2 can’t be the primary driver, nor is there evidence of positive feedback in the observations.
Finally, when some of the previous years’ data have been “adjusted” without any validation of the adjustment mechanism, comparison becomes difficult for an honest person and fraudulent for any other.
In the spirit of the liberal practice of everyone gets a medal, 5th place is even important when it come to AGW.