we have already discussed this. Here is your previous quote on the subject... "As you say CO2 may be a forcing or a feedback and has been a feedback at some times in the past history of the planet. But the overwhelming evidence based on such things as the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon and direct calculation of human generated emissions is that the current rise is due to humans and is a forcing of the climate system. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2...temperature.htm" And my point was that your author did not show the only reason warming preceeds CO2 buildup is milankovitch cycles. You MMGW people have serious chicken or the egg issues. Whereas what we do know is warming preceeds CO2 buildup based on earths history.
it is funny that some folks don't believe in the possibility of global warming but easily fall for the scam run by the bottled water companies. sure, we all must run around the whole day with out little bottles of water taking sips every 10 minutes. i can't figure out how only 30 years ago people managed not to drop dead from dehydration left and right
I think I've said this before, and no I'm not reproducing it because no one who's denying this cares about any evidence anyway, but all the data is publicly available. The formula for CO2 forcing is also publicly available. As I assume most of you know how to do a spreadsheet, throw in the data, find the temp data, throw that in. Then figure out from the formula where the temp would be if CO2 forcing was happening. What you'll find is that a seven year lag fits the best, in terms of the correlation coefficient. That is, seven years after a rise in CO2, the temps match most closely with what the formula would predict. Which makes sense, since the CO2 would have to get well-mixed in the atmosphere first. Also in the public realm: all of the warming gases are in a single index. Look at that and what you'll see is that the Montreal protocol limiting freon's use to stop the depletion of atmospheric ozone (which was fought by paid industry shills with the exact same arguments being used against CO2 and global warming now; wotta surprise) bought us a lot of time, as prior to 1990 all of the gases were rising rapidly, and after 1990 there was a pronounced slowdown in their accumulation, because the ones related to freon actually declined, and are still declining, and therefore slowing down the influence of the increasing CO2. Publicly available, and it explains quite a bit. Real evidence, meticulously gathered. Recent. Try it some time.
Please try to learn English and the difference between facts and assumptions, correlation and causality, and theories and what has been proven.
I didn't insert the word "all", you did. There are real scientists out there. And I have news for you. Teachers and so-called journalists are commies too. At least, Ricter has the decency to admit he's a commie.
post it a link... I will read it. Most of us don't deny warming... we deny your side had presented any proof man is causing it. We also state that if you look at longer histories you will see we are not even at high temperatures or high water levels. So we say it is very hard to attribute any of this to man when the earth may be cycling from colder to warmer right now anyway. The clearest data is the ice cores which show temperature rise precedes CO2 buildup by 700 years. And we may be in the earths CO2 buildup stage right now. So there is no way to tell if man made CO2 is modulating the cycling or exacerbating it or have no effect on it.
The page with the index of all of the gases, not just CO2, and the formula is here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Note particularly this quote: So arguably the recent relative steadiness of global temps (still rising, but at a smaller rate) which can be directly traced to the decline in CFCs is now being used by skeptics - virtually all of whom would have or in fact did argue against regulation of CFCs back when that was being discussed, with the very same arguments they're bringing up in this controversy - to argue against regulation of CO2. In other words, the progress made by this previous effort that they opposed they are now using against this effort, which they are also opposing. It's an amazingly dishonest bit of argumentation. If you look at the table on that page you'll see a sharp decline in the rate of increased forcing due to all these gases after 1990, when the Montreal Protocol went into effect and CFC's first stopped rising at a rapid rate, and then began to decline. Of course the good effect from the decline of the CFCs is temporary and won't last much longer. In the meantime, the CO2 problem will continue to get worse. And methane, which had stopped rising, has started up again, no one really knows why. CO2 data is here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ I no longer remember where I got the temp data from (I did this a long time ago in Lotus, so I don't even have the spreadsheet anymore), but a little googling will doubtless reveal a good source of global temperatures that covers the same timeframe as the Mauna Loa CO2 data.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!! It applies to scientists. They have to be way to the Left to get a job in a university. The universities get most of their money from our taxes... They have to scare the public with Global Warming to keep the taxpayers on the hook...
All that is total irrelevant nonsense. This is what's important: "A report published by the Global Warming Foundation ... includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant. This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming." (source)