I see why you are so deluded now. You think science is propaganda. Maybe this from NOAA will work for you. You HAVE heard of NOAA right? And here's a hint. Use authoritative sources for your science info, not propaganda websites like "hockeyschtick.blogspot.com". Just how gullible are you?
when put in proper perspective... your chart shows warming leading C02. here is how it works. the ocean warms or cools... and releases or eats co2. then the land temps go up or down... then co2 accumulates or dissipates. Should I like to the study and the chart for the 100th time? or have you learned something?
when you are in the bottom of the range... would warming be the safer thing to hope for? looking at the cycles we are at tip of warming period about reading to tip back quickly to glaciation stage. I prefer we err towards warming than cooling. warming is likely to be far more able to feed our 7 billion people. Oddly we do not have any science showing that man made co2 would cause warming... if we did... I would probably state... that since warming is better than cooling we should produce more. In fact there is a risk that like aerosols... more co2 would produce more clouds along the tropics... which might cause cooling rather than warming. Sadly, fc... you don't have a damn bit of science to counter the above speculation. Its all speculation, yet you pretend you have science.
Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a âCO2 famineâ and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than todayâs levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded â without any human influence â 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: âThanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. Thatâs simply not the case.â âThe cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASAâs and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have beenâand how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isnât the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather,â Happer and Schmidt wrote. Princetonâs Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a âCO2 âfamine.â Happer explained to Congress: âWarming and increased CO2 will be good for mankindâ¦âCO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving âpollutantâ and âpoisonâ of their original meaning,â Happer added. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/
Shrug. Millions of years ago there was more sulfur and lead in the air, too. Good for Man? No need to control lead emissions?
see the red line... that is the CO2 famine. that is what we know. scientifically speaking... we have no idea if co2 being at 400 ppm is good or bad or natural.
The idea we have is that there has been no significant change, in 100 years, to the Earth's orbit or to the Sun's cycle to explain away this CO2 increase.