|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 25, 2009 16:13:34 GMT
OK......the question is posed to all the great minds.
I would like to see a data set that shows co2 falling before the temp falls. And also, I would like to see a data set where the rise in co2 preceeds the temp rise.
I have read 100's of papers, and have not been able to find one that shows either of thesee events happening. With that said, there is no way that I can read all the papers. So I expect to learn here in a robust fashion.
I will accept non peer reviewed papers as it is to the point that those are the only papers that actually have merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 25, 2009 17:09:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Nov 25, 2009 17:21:22 GMT
ROFL! Are you trying to blow smoke Steve, or do you work for UEA? What is the source of this "data"? What is the explanation of the steep rise from 1910-1940"  ?? Why the caveat "This is not proof of that the CO2 caused the warming. But, if CO2 did not cause it, we have a somewhat unusual coincidence. As seen on the temperature page this thirty-year temperature increase is unusual. There was only one temperature swing of this size in the oldest thermometer record which dates back 350 years, and it was a down swing. Upswings of this magnitude would seem to happen only about once in 700 years, and this one happened right in step with human CO2 production." Further: "Caution: The match of the CO2 and temperature graph above is somewhat deceptive. Since one is temperature and one is CO2 they cannot be graphed on the same axis, so the two axes have been adjusted to align the two. ..." If that's all you've got, no wonder AGW is questioned. Hmmmmmmmm, more "adjusted" graphs. No thanks. Just the FACTS is all we ask for. TYVM |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 25, 2009 17:41:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 25, 2009 18:46:44 GMT
Carbon dioxide is obviously not the primary cause of global warming, since most examples of global warming are more likely instigated by other causes, such as the tiny nudges of the Milankovitch cycles.
Those that can understand that A causing B does not preclude B causing A, and who aren't afraid of being SHOUTED DOWN BY MAGELLAN, might want to consider whether past temperatures can be explained if CO2 and, more particularly, feedbacks are ignored, and whether past very strong evidence of a correlation between CO2 and temperature (which are more extensive in geological history than just the "Inconvenient Truth" graph of the ice age cycles) can really be explained by saying that temperature only drives CO2 and not the other way around.
BTW I was only interested in the graph of the above. I didn't read the text. Further, since a few here don't understand irony I should make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious response to Sigurdur's slightly carelessly worded question.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 25, 2009 19:42:59 GMT
BTW I was only interested in the graph of the above. I didn't read the text. Further, since a few here don't understand irony I should make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious response to Sigurdur's slightly carelessly worded question. Nice backpedal! |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 25, 2009 23:47:40 GMT
Carbon dioxide is obviously not the primary cause of global warming, since most examples of global warming are more likely instigated by other causes, such as the tiny nudges of the Milankovitch cycles. Those that can understand that A causing B does not preclude B causing A, and who aren't afraid of being SHOUTED DOWN BY MAGELLAN, might want to consider whether past temperatures can be explained if CO2 and, more particularly, feedbacks are ignored, and whether past very strong evidence of a correlation between CO2 and temperature (which are more extensive in geological history than just the "Inconvenient Truth" graph of the ice age cycles) can really be explained by saying that temperature only drives CO2 and not the other way around. BTW I was only interested in the graph of the above. I didn't read the text. Further, since a few here don't understand irony I should make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious response to Sigurdur's slightly carelessly worded question. The question might have been slightly carelessly worded.....on purpose....  |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 26, 2009 0:50:29 GMT
" The question might have been slightly carelessly worded.....on purpose.... " You old fox, you! The question definitely made more sense than Steve's link.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 26, 2009 1:51:20 GMT
WEll, so far there are is no literature that shows a conclusive co2 causes temps to rise publication. I am rather disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 26, 2009 2:19:02 GMT
Lots of nice papers try and show a correlation though...
Too bad that correlation does not prove causeation. So many things would be easy to prove that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 26, 2009 3:22:43 GMT
Carbon dioxide is obviously not the primary cause of global warming, since most examples of global warming are more likely instigated by other causes, such as the tiny nudges of the Milankovitch cycles. Those that can understand that A causing B does not preclude B causing A, and who aren't afraid of being SHOUTED DOWN BY MAGELLAN, might want to consider whether past temperatures can be explained if CO2 and, more particularly, feedbacks are ignored, and whether past very strong evidence of a correlation between CO2 and temperature (which are more extensive in geological history than just the "Inconvenient Truth" graph of the ice age cycles) can really be explained by saying that temperature only drives CO2 and not the other way around. BTW I was only interested in the graph of the above. I didn't read the text. Further, since a few here don't understand irony I should make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious response to Sigurdur's slightly carelessly worded question. I didn't even mention your name  I didn't read the text. Some say they only read the text and ignore the pictures in Playboy. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2009 9:16:27 GMT
BTW I was only interested in the graph of the above. I didn't read the text. Further, since a few here don't understand irony I should make it quite clear that it wasn't meant to be taken as a serious response to Sigurdur's slightly carelessly worded question. Nice backpedal! Yes I was talking about you in the above, so you are right to be petulant. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 26, 2009 9:18:28 GMT
WEll, so far there are is no literature that shows a conclusive co2 causes temps to rise publication. I am rather disappointed. Now that I've answered your question, you've changed it . Was that careless or deliberate? Have you realised that you've changed it? |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 26, 2009 12:14:01 GMT
WEll, so far there are is no literature that shows a conclusive co2 causes temps to rise publication. I am rather disappointed. Now that I've answered your question, you've changed it . Was that careless or deliberate? Have you realised that you've changed it? This is all too deep for me. Is there a lawyer in the house? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 26, 2009 13:59:32 GMT
WEll, so far there are is no literature that shows a conclusive co2 causes temps to rise publication. I am rather disappointed. Now that I've answered your question, you've changed it . Was that careless or deliberate? Have you realised that you've changed it? I added a parimeter to the question. You posted a graph, but the rise in co2 followed a rise in temp. The graph was an excellent correlation, but that data set did not show co2 rose before the temp rose. The funny thing is Keeling, by ignoring earlier evidence of high amounts of co2, shot the co2 causes warming in the foot. |
|
??
