Yes, it is possible (anything is) but a century of massive scientific research (the target of a systematic campaign of aggressive denial spearheaded by the fossil fuel industry) very solidly shows that it is NOT a coincidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...
“No it isn't a coincidence. That is a primary reason scientists attributed GW to increased CO2”
Uh, no Griff that is not why scientists attribute global warming to CO2, but it is one method they, along with global politicians have used to SELL the concept. They know that people are easily fooled by farcical cause and effect relationships. Same method used to sell all these pills that clean out your bowels, increase stamina, etc. and cars that will help pick up women.
Too large of a percentage of the population does not understand how cause and effect works for many mechanical, physiological and natural variations, least of all the most extremely complex climate system of our planet and solar system. That is just an affliction of the human brain and our education. Correlation of factors does not indicate direct cause and effect relationships. It likely that both CO2 and Temperature are the results of multiple causes and their many interactive effects. Does CO2 effect temperature? Highly certain to some degree. Very simple - it's molecular structure absorbs thermal energy failrly well without major change and breakdown. so does methane and other gases. However, that does not mean it is the root cause of temperature variation (increase or decrease). The more recent (and previous) temperature fluctuation that occurred without correlation to CO2 indicates there is a highly interactive root cause that occurs naturally.
Is it any wonder? We live on a molten pressure vessel with a hardened crust that exists in a continuous state in which water is continuously present in all phases. The vessel rotates ******** about a huge thermal reactor in an elliptical orbit with a huge offset on the of the ellipse center line from the primary heat source. None of these sources of variations is constant. So naturally, a trace gas is the red-x of temperature fluxuation?
Correlation is interesting but not generally well understood.
If two events, A and B, are perfectly correlated then it is possible that A causes B, or B causes A, or both A and B are caused by something else, or coincidence.
The problem with the CO2 temperature link is that temperatures changes first. So the argument is on the lines of: The victim fell down and died and this caused me to shoot him, officer. I have seen all kinds of attempts to make this sound plausible but they have all failed. If you find a good one please let me know.
The other problem is that just at the moment CO2 is "skyrocketing" and temperature is not: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
To virtualguy: Mentioning quantum mechanics in this context is like describing why bullets leave guns at high velocity. However, it says nothing about who pulled the trigger.
Correlation doesn't mean cause.
Scientists look for cause by using physics, and the usual starting point is to look at where the energy is going.
Back in 2001 they first reported satellite measurements showing that CO2 was trapping heat exactly as expected. And there are other 'fingerprints' too, like how the upper atmosphere is cooling as expected for CO2 while the lower atmosphere warms.
Scientific work is anonymously checked by experts, then it has to be published in a public journal to see if it stands the test of time. The results of several of these studies are here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirica...
According to Professor Phil Jones, head of the climate research unit of the UK met office, there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 17 years. This despite the increase of human CO2 accelerating. So between 1980 and the mid 90's, the warming and CO2 levels did coincide, since then they have not. Between the 1940's and 1980's the climate cooled while CO2 increased. CO2 is one factor in many than influence global temperatures, but it is not a principal driving force
The global average temperature dropped by 0.28C from last Aug to this Aug while CO2 continued to increase. Coincidence?
Global average temperatures have dropped several years since 1998 while CO2 levels continue to climb. Coincidence?
CO2 levels have never driven temperatures up in our past and the fact that our temperatures have been steadily rising since coming out of The Little Ice Age (LIA) is reason to believe that it still doesn't.
Is it a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution started after the end of the LIA?
Nuclear physicists have been showing that CO2 has limits of warming due to its saturated warming effect. http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-tec...
Your premise is simply false.
The correlation between CO2 and Temperature is negative.
As CO2 levels reach new highs for the past 15 years, temperatures are in a negative trend.
Beat a dead horse.
I drink soda. The bubbles in the soda is made of CO2.
I felt warmer after drinking the soda.
No it isn't a coincidence. That is a primary reason scientists attributed GW to increased CO2
**** Zip..."another one rides the bus" Another DA denier promoting no warming for 17 years. That is based on a lie in an article by David Rose who took MET data and misinterpreted it to his own advantage. The MET denounced him as a lier in their blog the same day. But deniers keep spreading that lie here and everywhere.
No, correlation does not imply causation. Though I believe that green house gasses is the cause of the warming, I don't think that is the proof. Testing is required to prove it, and more importantly, win over those who currently disbelieve it.
Is it possible that the coincidence is a coincidence?
No, the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule proves that CO2 is the cause.
There is no man made global warming. The earth temps have been moderating for the past 15 years. CO2 is plant food. You exhale it, and it causes you no harm.
by itself no, but by process of elimination yes. It's not the sun or magic cosmic rays.
