Here.
It's some deep wading, at least for me.
While the connection between temperature and CO2 etc. is heavily documented, and clear from every other analysis of prehistoric data I've seen, I'm not finding anything that shows clearly that the CO2 level changes forced the temperature changes, not the other way around.
I may simply be missing it in the paper--I'm still plowing through it--but the fact remains that there are many external influences that can alter Earth's temperature over historic cycles. I can't think of anything that would suddenly spontaneously cause CO2 or CH3 to jump drastically up or down all by themselves, dragging the temperature along with them.
If it was all about the CO2, there wouldn't BE cycles. Once the CO2 was up, why wouldn't it stay there? Or slowly change over long periods of time? The cycles we see are horribly abrubt by geological time frames.
I readily concede that there is likely to be a feedback that would release more CO2 or CH3 as temperature rises (melting methane ice for example), but that doesn't explain what starts it, or even more importantly, why it suddenly decides to drop again like a rock.
This leaves another interesting question: What would climate be doing right now if there weren't any human emissions going on?
Current Events » in reply to just the link in text form
Hansen's latest paper
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
