http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

For example on this graph how could temperature rise occur before co2 levels?

Temperature rises can occur naturally, not just with CO2. The 'skeptical' science argument here can be circular reasoning. You take a model that assumes CO2 causes warming, and use that to show CO2 causes warming. They haven't shown how well they understand the CO2 rise that comes from temperature rise. What if current CO2 rise is more natural than thought, in response to a temperature rise a thousand years ago?

The problem is that modern science is complicated. Rather than try to understand that complexity, many people simply try to apply a simplistic analysis. In this case the argument from the skeptics or deniers is that 'cause must precede effect' and therefore if a rise in CO2 occurs after a temperature rise then CO2 can't be responsible for the rise in temperature. Which is flat-out wrong! The reason it is wrong is because this idea of 'cause and effect' only works in an isolated system with no feedback mechanisms.

Let's give you an example. Suppose I have one of those machines for firing tennis balls across the court. I fire a tennis ball towards you and you hit it back. I then fire another tennis ball shortly after the first, and you hit it back. I turn around and look at a little display that flashes green when a ball is fired and red when one is returned. What do I see? Well, depending on when I looked I could either see a green followed by a red flash ... or a red flash followed by a green flash. In the first case, the ball is fired and you hit it back. In the second case you hit a ball and it's followed by a ball being fired. So, the question is, based on the flashes of light, does hitting a ball necessarily happen after one is fired? Or does it happen before? And the answer is actually both ... it's the fact that we have a continuous cycle of balls being fired and balls being hit that leads to the dilemma!

The point is that, in the above example, hitting a ball can quite happily occur before a ball is fired. Does that mean that you hitting balls is not the result of me firing them? Of course not, and you can see why the 'cause and effect' simple argument doesn't always work.

Temperature and CO2 are linked, so a rise in CO2 levels causes an increase in temperature, and an increase in temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels. The fact that a temperature rise occurs before a CO2 rise doesn't disprove a 'cause and effect' link any more than the fact that you appearing to hit a ball before one is fired proves that the hitting is not the result of me firing them!

Sceptics love asking that question.

CO2 always gets the blame and yet on every timescale temperature rise precedes CO2 rise.

The mechanism is quite clear, the warming warms the oceans and the oceans have to release CO2 as a result because cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water.

You now need to make a decision. Who do you believe: all those people who say it is caused by CO2 or your own powers of deduction?

Skeptical Science used to have a very convoluted explanation. They probably still do have. It went something like this: In the past when A shot B and B died we used to say that A had murdered B. Now we know that the mere fact of B falling down dead can startle A and cause him to pull the trigger. So it cannot be classified as murder any more because B caused it to happen. It is more like suicide.

Colour me sceptical!

Antarctic: "In layman's terms, the cycle of glacial change we have had for the last 2.5 million years is linked to the Milankovitch cycles"

I'm glad you finally came over to our side. It's the Sun! We have been telling that for a long time now.

This is a very clear explanation of the chemical reactions involved by a true certified scientist.

Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: “The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature....Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun - are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.”

There are no temperature records over a couple hundred years ago. Those are reconstructed from other measurements that are *believed* to accurately represent what the temperature was. The fact is we just do not have a reliable temperature record to compare to CO2 levels. But CO2 levels ARE known by direct measurement going back at least 400,000 years, by measuring air bubbles trapped in polar ice sheets that are that old. So we know for sure the the CO2 rise is greater and MUCH faster than any in the past 400,000 years. If you project that forward "only" a few thousand more years, you actually get toxic levels of CO2 in the air. So do we keep adding it to the air for thousands of years until it is actually toxic? Or for a few hundred more years so it gets only slightly toxic and then fix it? How many hundred years? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Fix it as soon as possible, not that we know.

Evidence showing that increased temperature has preceded increased CO2 concentrations in the past, does not disprove the converse. They are not mutually exclusive. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy

The so called lag is one deniers often try to use, it's an argument long since dismissed and the explanation is not as Jim Z would have you believe 'one created by skeptical science' but one that comes from actual scientists.

The problem deniers have with trying to deny this is that both the lag and the cause of the lag are part of the same theory, deniers just leave out the part about the cause, to try and make it sound like Co2 is not a warming gas, gee are deniers still trying to play the Co2 is not a warming gas myth.

Within the actual theory it is thought added Co2 was added after this lag and that is when temperatures really started to rise as did sea level.

In layman's terms, the cycle of glacial change we have had for the last 2.5 million years is linked to the Milankovitch cycles they affect glacial melt giving a little more Sunshine to polar regions and causing some glacial retreat, as this happens the planets albedo changes, permafrost melts and releases large volumes of methane which changes fairly quickly to Co2 this speeds up the process of warming, in the actual theory Co2 plays a strong part in the warming that takes place, which is of course why deniers don't mention it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...

To be honest as someone who has worked in science most of my adult life (over 25 years) I am still amazed by the mindless comment and conspiracies deniers continue to peddle. Commenter's like jim who pretend to be scientists but clearly don't know the first thing about the subject standout as the obvious phonies they are, it's all a bit sad really, but is in line with a now lengthy list of deniers here who made similar claims Randall pretended to be in the California Government (although he changed this several times) now kano has pretended first he was a fisherman then he was a power station worker for 20 year. These guys just seem bent of making themselves look silly.

Simply because it's TEMPERATURE that drives CO2 rather than the other way around.

You can see it very clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-te...

Even Al Gore was forced to admit that temperature moves FIRST and then CO2 follows in a hearing before Congress. See it for yourself: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20...

The fact that temperatuer drives CO2 rather than the other way around completly destroys the man-made Global Warming theory. It is dead, but because of all the money involved, it's like a zombie and keeps on walking.

Be careful of skepticalscience.com, it is an Alarmists website where even it's name is a lie.

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle