Proxy data shows that there is a strong correlation between rising global temperatures and rising CO2 levels. The rising temperatures can cause the release of sequestered CO2 to enter the atmosphere. We may be witnessing the first time in the planet's history that the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere causes the global temperature to rise. Make no doubts about it, The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics show us that this will be the result. More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause the global temperatures to rise when all else remains the same. Since all else does not remain the same we can see fluctuations in the overall warming trend. Natural variations within the climate will mask any short term warming/cooling within the long term trends. The natural variations do not disappear because of unnatural forcings, but there will be tipping points reached that will overcome the natural variations in the global climate and the unnatural forces will dominate the climate.
Maxx, during the times of this planet's history where CO2 levels were higher than today, it is also during the time of this planet's history when solar influences on the planet were weaker due to our younger sun at these times. Solar irradiance was not as high as it is during our modern times.This makes for a real game changer, does it not? ... Did you fail to take note this very important detail? Did you also exclude the detail about positioning of the continents due the moving of the tectonic plates during these times and that continent position also plays a vital role in global climate? Sure you did. Not because you probably did know these details, but because you have hopes that others will not know these details.
Maxx, first, it is not my theory. This is what the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics tell us. Second, the Wiki link you supplied fully supports my statement that CO2 levels and temperature rise coincide with each other. ... You only called me wrong to just to say that I am wrong when your link shows that I am correct. Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension course would be to your advantage?
Maxx, once again I must say that you need a remedial reading comprehension course. This is what I said, "We may be witnessing the first time in the planet's history that the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere causes the global temperature to rise." And, yes. The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics do tell us that our adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will lead to a warming trend in our climate, beyond the natural variations within our climate. I beg you to show us within these Laws of Science that would state otherwise. Once you have done so, and it has been verified within the scientific community, I feel certain that a Nobel Prize awaits you. You cannot do so and no has anyone else been able to do so.
So, since phones always were connected to the wall with a cord and had rotary dialling devices on them means that cell phones with touch pads are a figment of my imagination? Just because something happened one way before doesn't mean humans can't change it.
Try putting .054% plutonium in your coffee in the morning and see how long it is before you're bleeding from all your orifices. A .224 bullet doesn't weigh much compared to your body, but it would still cause some damage going through your brain.
I believe you actually believe many of the quotes above, but they are taken out of context or just are plain wrong. Ex: "Water is the most important greenhouse gas" Yes, water is the largest greenhouse gas, but that doesn't mean adding more of another greenhouse gas won't change things. If I have a pot of water that is 100% full, it is in balance and will go nowhere. Adding one drop of water (or a couple billion tons of CO2 per year) will cause it to overflow.
In the past, CO2 was a *feedback*. What would happen is that temperature would rise a little bit (from one of the many, many, many other climate influences, including the sun), then the warmer temperatures would release CO2 from the oceans, which would drive temperatures up further, which would release more CO2, and so on. As with the water feedback, it was finite (so wouldn't cause "runaway" warming)--the CO2 released from one degree of warming wasn't quite enough to cause another full degree of warming. But, the CO2 feedback (along with the water feedback, and other feedbacks) explains how a fairly small change in solar input could cause a relatively large change in actual temperature.
Now, *we are putting CO2 into the air*. It's a direct forcing, not a feedback.
edit:
No. I clarified that with "the CO2 released from one degree of warming wasn't quite enough to cause another full degree of warming"... there are diminishing returns there.
How most feedbacks work (at least, most climate feedbacks)
There is, let's say, 10 units of warming (not 10 degrees, I'm using hypothetical units). Those 10 units of warming release 10 units of X. 10 units of X causes, let's say, 5 units of warming. Which will release 5 units of X, which will cause about 2.5 units of warming. And so on. The total from that will be about 10 additional units of warming from the original 10 units of warming.
Increased CO2 sometimes is a result.
Other times CO2 causes warming.
The physics of how that happens is easily understood.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-...
CO2 has never driven temperatures, because it has never been in smaller quantities of less than 150ppm, meaning it is saturated and always has been.
The basic laws of science thermodynamics and chemistry, say that the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentrations. and can do very little warming at our present concentrations.
Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
They think it does now so they can blame humanity and force their agenda to massively expand government control and create new bureaucracies full of unelected politicians that strip away personal freedoms, destroy capitalism, force socialism, and redistribute wealth.
Tim Ball is an idiot in good company with "Lord" Monckton.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, get over it.
Since it is hovering near 400ppm...duh
-----------------------
[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three times as much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction.
**Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem
If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gasses in the atmosphere, the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], its an incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to take that portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern and it gets even smaller.
The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its the most important greenhouse gas.
The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.
**Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg
We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did in the past. CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.
**Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.
**Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, by far the most important greenhouse gas. Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.
**Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.
**Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975.
**Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Center
-----------------------
I do not agree with your premise, so I cannot comment on your question.
