I would like to believe what you say, but you back up your argument by linking this person's article. I don't know what is right or wrong on global warming, but I do know that guy has a serious agenda and completely misreads data to help support his position. But part of his job as an opinion writer is to stir shit up, so who is to blame him. I'm surprised you keep use him as you source to prove your points. But if a link is what you want, here is a little light reading for you: http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Parrenin_Science_2013.pdf
The opinion article had links to actual data. That you didn't read it is not my problem. Find me the data that shows CO2 increases are a primary cause of temperatures rising over the last 15 years. If it's so simple, why won't you post the data?
What is the baseline in that graph? It doesn't show temperature. I love that it starts in 1975. Why not chart 1930-1945? Oh wait, I know why... "Think long-term". OK, if the present doesn't show a causal relationship between CO2 and rising temperature, then why have any certitude in a long-term causal relationship? 1930-34 had much less in terms of CO2 emissions, yet temps were similar to today's. Why? Answer me that, please.
It's not simple, my point is when you rely on that idiot to prove a point, that isn't credible stuff. Forgive me if I don't feel like going through that writer's data. Last time we found out the writer completely mislead with both the title and his conclusions from the data he supplied. Don't feel like plowing through his data to figure out he again is misleading his readers. Last time you were the expert on reading charts and said it's OK if I'm not good at it you just happen to have experience reading charts from your time in the medical field. And yet you didn't even catch that his study was based on responses only from people in the oil industry. Through that experience I'm skeptical on both how this writer and how you read data. But I did supply a link above that looks just a tad more credible than Mr. Taylor's analysis: Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies. Analyses of polar ice cores have shown that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (aCO2) and surface air temperature are closely related and that they have risen and fallen in tandem over most of the past 800,000 years. However . . . This topic is anything but simple for us non scientist. You're not going to pretend you completely understand all this, are you? I know you have training reading charts and all but . .
Google 1998 and global temperature and you'll see why you chose 1998. I'm willing to bet if you had a chart that showed from 1900-present day it would continue the chart that I posted.
The old 'if you can't refute the message, destroy the messenger'. We'll just have to disagree. I'm confident in my readings of the data. If you believe that CO2 has a causal effect on temperatures rising, that's based on faith at this point, because the data simply is not there.
The point is that CO2 emissions continue to grow, while temps have stagnated. That's not a causal relationship, no matter how hard you want to think it is. If more CO2 emitted means higher temperatures, at some point the data needs to support the claim. It simply doesn't, so now we are just supposed to act anyhow, just in case.
You and Mr. Taylor have this all figured out . . . just like in that last article you posted by him (or are you sticking with you were joking about posting that article . . . kind of have to because you didn't read that data correctly)
Huh, strange...ever since early 1900's, temps have been going up. How queer. (ignore the crack about leprechauns).
you're asking where the glaciers that carved out the GL's went? You mean like 10K + years ago (or whatever it was)? They eventually went into the ocean. Whats your point?
It wasn't 10K+ years ago. There must have been warming back then, right? I mean it was cold enough for there to be glaciers, and then it was warm enough to melt them, right? So.... how many motor cars burning fossil fuel were there back then?
Is your contention that global warming as it naturally occurs comes in short, 100-year spikes like we're observing now?
From the glaciers we know already melted long before man was industrialized, it's plainly clear that there has been global warming going on for thousands of years. We know there was an ice age and that it basically ended 10,000 years ago. I don't see any reason to expect the warming to be linear. I think your 100-year spikes thing is a mathematical trick. Depends on how you scale the x and y axis.
Richard A. Muller is not a global warming skeptic. The video is about 5 minutes. It's not going to be a waste of time to watch it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller [video=youtube;8BQpciw8suk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk[/video]
