the facts about global warming

[Sunsettommy]

Jason,

Quote:most graphs show that Co2 concentrations lag temperature, this isn't heavily disputed. Whether or not it's a fact is uncertain, but it seems like it would be true. The reason I didn't dwell on it is because it's not central to my argument. The mechanisms by which CO2 has been released into the atmosphere are unprecedented, and i've indicated this with the following changes to my document:

The fact that ALL published science papers state that CO2 lags temperature changes by centuries is significant,because it clearly shows that it is NOT driving the temperatures up.

How would you know that a 115 ppmv increase in 125 years is "unprecedented"?

After all we have over 600 million years to base it on.

The real reason why they push the idea that it is "unprecedented" is because their AGW hypothesis is in big trouble,otherwise it would never be brought up.

The chart YOU showed has levels over 1500 ppmv for most of the last 250 million years.Life goes on in all that CO2.

We can live with such levels and more easily because the food crops grows better and on less water and fertilizers.

Quote:In regards to the warming, it seems to me that this (the past 40 years) is the first time that warming has deviated significantly from solar cycles in the past 2 centuries. What has changed? The fact is that solar cycles simply no longer explain the temperature shifts, so we need another answer. I would say CO2 is the most logical.

This is about as scientific as eating a pancake since it is based on pure guesswork.

Why chose a trace gas with 3 minimal IR absorption bands anyway?

You will have to do better than that.



Here you referred to a "document" that you stated was changed:

Quote:the actual time lag is subject to dispute since the air trapped inside the vostock ice records is younger than the ice itself (New Scientist (2007)). Even if temperature did in fact lag behind CO2 variations in the past, it would be a logical fallacy to conclude from this that CO2 concentrations are not the driving force for temperature variations today, since the mechanisms are distinctly different to those that have occurred during the past 400,000 years (one needs only to look at the above graph to notice the sharp and unprecedented climb in CO2 concentrations during the last century to verify this).

The point being?

Again New Scientist was stating something that has NEVER happened, according to ALL of the science papers that have been published on the undisputed fact,that CO2 are always lagging temperature changes.

They make a big deal about the sharp rise,but never provided any evidence that it should be of any concern.It is a game such shabby publications play and does not even make sense anyway because there NEVER has been any demonstrated evidence that CO2 drives temperatures up.

Notice that New Scientist does NOT say that? They instead try to convince you be worried about a rapid rise of a trace gas that is still a trace gas and will still be a trace gas 100 years from now.

This is scaremongering and YOU fell for it!