But even Al Gore was forced to admit that temperature rises FIRST and then CO2 levels FOLLOW. And this admission came from Gore in testimony before Congress.
Watch it for yourself here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20...
Of course this once again proves that man-made Global Warming theory is COMPLETELY WRONG and is junk science.
-----------------------
So your contention is that Vostok Ice Core data in the past has lead CO2 increase so therefor the current increase in CO2 is natural? This is not logical and not scientific. Results can change as parameters change. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the actual data than falsehoods.
As of 2010 human emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture total over 33 billion tonnes as per CDIAC.
9167 * 3.667 / 1000 = 33.615
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global....
The atmosphere is increasing at an average rate of about 2ppm per year as per Scripps and NOAA.
2(1*2.13*3.667) = 15.621
Note: The number 3.667 was used as that is what was used above.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3...
The atmosphere is increasing at less than half of what mans emissions are just due to fossil fuel use and cement production. Your argument is horribly flawed if you are attempting to argue that this bout of increasing CO2 is a natural occurrence. Natural CO2 sinks are attempting to make up the difference which is why the oceans are decreasing in pH as they absorb the excess CO2. This would not occur under natural circumstances.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equi...
You're misrepresenting the data and it takes time for CO2 levels to reach the Antarctic. Vostok ice cores are a lagging indicator of CO2 levels. We know CO2 leads temperatures because of the very physics by which it restricts heat radiation from the planet.
Are the Vostok ice cores the only data that we have on carbon dioxide and temperature? I thought that we have been measuring temperatures with thermometers for the last century and a half.
And of course, there are also the laws of thermodynamics.
You can also do a home experiment to show that CO2 will increase after a temperature increase. However, I suspect that it is as irrelevant to the issue as the home experiments that demonstrate the greenhouse effect.
CO2 and temperature are the two parts of what can be considered to be a closed coupled feedback mechanism. If CO2 rises then temperatures follow, if temperatures rise then CO2 follows. It doesn’t make any difference which comes first, the other will follow. Pretty obvious when you think about it.
This, and other similar feedbacks, will tend to a maximum (or minimum) at which point an increase (or decrease) in one component has no further effect on the other and thus a quasi equilibrium is reached. A status quo would be maintained were it not for the fact that many factors affect temperatures and CO2, and so the ‘equilibrium’ exists only at the point before the balance tips the other way.
PS – Where, in the real world, is this scientific research that “proves” CO2 levels are dependent on temperatures. Please provide a link. Or do you intend to maintain the amazing record that skeptics have of failing to back up their claims.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: A CHALLENGE
Let’s assume you’re right (yes I know, but bear with me here) and that temp increases lead CO2 increases. CO2 levels have risen phenomenally in the last 100 years, infinitely faster than any natural process could ever produce, and are now at levels not seen for at least 25 million years.
The rise in CO2 levels in the last 100 years or so is in excess of 120 parts per million by volume. Throughout an entire ice-age cycle CO2 levels don’t change by this much, even the most dramatic natural rise in CO2 is less than 1 part per million per 100 years. CO2 levels are now rising more than 100 times faster than anything that any natural cycle could produce.
If you’re correct then there has to be a corresponding unprecedented rise in temperatures some 800 years ago. But of course, there wasn’t. Instead global temperatures were falling.
Where does reality leave your claim?
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO MAXX
Regarding your comment: In my answer I criticised skeptics for failing to back up their claims. You then state that studies prove temps rise first and CO2 follows but you can’t be bothered to link to them. Thankyou for proving my point so emphatically.
the outgasing of CO2 by oceans is a feedback to warming like Trevor explains. Why do some people still refuse what the scientists are saying?
Both. See Trevor, as usual.
Libtard propaganda.
Show as many people as you can the Vostok data - it has been utterly ignored by almost all of the press; once people see it they realize they are being told only a part of the information. A half truth is a whole lie.
Because Al Gore said so. To an idiot, that is good enough.
Even in the face of scientific research that proves that co2 levels are dependent on the temperature of the earth, some people still can't accept that fact and instead believe that co2 levels control temperatures. Why do people accept this false conclusion against objective data?
