Evidence for CO2 causing global warming?

[PsychoSerenity]

[Feck]

strange link WTF ?

This one is better

[PsychoSerenity]

strange link WTF ?

This one is better

Really? it worked fine on mine. Oh well the point still stands.

[datinsky]

There is no evidence of the past where Co2 rises have preceded temperature. Also, all supposed warming now is based on computer models that have fudge factors built in. Since the climate is a non-linear chaotic system, they can not account for all variables. So how can people be so sure that man-made warming is happening?

[PsychoSerenity]

Sorry, I'm going to have to go before I break the forum rules.

[Tero]

Er, man made warming only happened once. Like the virgin birth thing. Do you want proof of that too?

[Azathoth]

[Feck]

Why can nobody post a Facepalm tonight ?

[Azathoth]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Bella Fortuna]

There is no evidence of the past where Co2 rises have preceded temperature. Also, all supposed warming now is based on computer models that have fudge factors built in. Since the climate is a non-linear chaotic system, they can not account for all variables. So how can people be so sure that man-made warming is happening?

Hello. Did you find this place in Googling 'chaotic systems?'

[nellikin]

Okay, Mistermack. What if the smoothing out of the temperature line is merely attributable to lower resolution of data at points further back in history. I.e. shallower ice cores having been analysed intensely with larger intervals at greater depths (and less cores taken). I'm not saying this is the case as I haven't read the original study, but it would result in exactly the above-depicted graph. No need to invoke the unlikely diffusion of oxygen through the ice - the oxygen is measured on the ice (i.e. H20) which is a solid and not subject to the same diffusivity as the gases in bubbles...

[Ronja]

Welcome to the forum, datinski! I think you will find that this thread addresses the issue of global warming at quite some length: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16656

[mistermack]

Okay, Mistermack. What if the smoothing out of the temperature line is merely attributable to lower resolution of data at points further back in history. I.e. shallower ice cores having been analysed intensely with larger intervals at greater depths (and less cores taken). I'm not saying this is the case as I haven't read the original study, but it would result in exactly the above-depicted graph. No need to invoke the unlikely diffusion of oxygen through the ice - the oxygen is measured on the ice (i.e. H20) which is a solid and not subject to the same diffusivity as the gases in bubbles...

That's possible I suppose. You would probably have to ask them, to get that kind of detail, or read the studies right through.
It doesn't look that that happened at first sight, because the change looks perfectly gradual to me, with no steps, where they changed their method. But it could be the case. I think it's more likely they used a standard method for all cores, but that's just my guess.
I doubt if the layers are as well defined as sediment on an ocean bed though.
The snow in the antarctic is usually pretty dry when it falls, and the winds are very strong, so it's probably blowing around and drifting and mingling much more than sediment layers, and you might be getting partial melts and refreezing at times.

I doubt if they could be specific about global temperatures down to less than one hundred year averages, but I could be wrong. Without detailed reading of all their results, there's no way of knowing for sure. The cores are only a proxy for antarctic temperatures, and THEY are a proxy for global temperatures, so it's unlikely you could confidently deduce global temperatures year by year, or even decade by decade.
But that's just my opinion, not having read the full studies.
.

[datinsky]

No one has proven 2 things yet. A) That CO2 rising precedes temperature rising. (there is absolutley NO historical connection to this fact. B) ALL supposed warming increases are based SOLELY on computer models which have fudge factors built in. That means you have a margin of error and since we are talking about of supposed amount of warming of.06 degrees there is certainly debate whether this exceeds the margin of error. Scientists have admitted that their temperature gather equiptment was placed in urban heat centers that could artifically skew the data. Their answer? Try to correct the models to account for this supposed discrepancy. How could someone do this with any accuracy? It is foolhardy.

Also, it is pure speculation as to what type of climate we would have with a 2-4 degree increase. CO2 is ONLY .038% of the atmoshperic content. That is such an insignificant trace element and ANY increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would be based on a logarithmic curve NOT a linear curve, which means that a doubling of CO2 from the current level WOULD NOT result in a direct doubling of the current climate effects. Lastly, the atmoshpere is a self regulating system, which means that if CO2 would increase by a large percentage the atmoshpere would counter with other events that would cause it to lower over time such as global forcing.

I dont think people understand the true content of CO2 in the atmoshpere. Current levels show 380 parts per million. To break it down further that means there is only 38 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air. To put that in perspective there is 20,000 molecules of O2 for every 100,000 molecules of air. Can ANYONE understand the scale we are dealing with here? Even if we DOUBLE CO2, which on any scale is almost impossible, the effects would be negligible. To focus the entire climate science on the pretense of a minor element such as CO2 is absurd on its face. Please keep in mind that whatever the IPCC panel has found in the past, the projections of what would POTENTIALLY happen, if temperature is rising, is NOT science but speculation.

Everyone that looks at anecdotal evidence, of supposed climate changes, and extrapolates negative effects is sufferiung from something called confirmation bias. Look it up. For people that conclude, without any further need of proof, that climate is warming from a direct effect of man, and reject any doubt from others is the same as religious nuts that conclude the bible is true and do not want to hear any further refutation. YOU PEOPLE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN RELIGIOUS NUTS, in this particular topic.

respectfully,

[Animavore]

I think you'll find it's the deniers who are no different to religious nuts