It is not just simple correlation. It is the correlation of CO2 and temperature - the absence of correlations between global temperature and other known potential drivers of global temperature such as the sun and Milankovitch cycles - plus scientific theories (e.g., greenhouse theory and quantum mechanics) and other scientific knowledge of geophysics, atmospheric physics and chemistry, etc.
It is the same as when science establishes links between specific pathogens and illness - for example, the causal link between cigarette smoke and cancer (which, coincidentally, also faced a campaign of denial funded by large corporations). .
====
kane --
>>Vostock ice cores shows that CO2 lags behind temperature by hundreds of years<<
For the first 6-800 years of the event, after which temperature lags CO2 for the next 4-6,000 years
How can you not even get the fcking facts straight - especially after they have been shown to you dozens of times? It's little wonder that that the words 'Denier' and 'liar' are so frequently found in association.
====
Caliservative –
You are both mixing scientific terms and concepts – and defining them incorrectly.
>>One of the criteria for inferring causality is that the model proposed in the hypothesis must be validated empirically; that is, it must correctly predict real events in multiple experiments. There must not be a single failure.
The models used in the global warming hypothesis have failed to validate over and over again, yet the 'belief' persists.<<
-------
In the first paragraph you are using “model” in place of “scientific theory” – which is fine if you make that point clear. In the second paragraph, you are using “models” instead of “experiments” – which would also be fine if you were explicit and consistent in your usage; however, you are neither – and you are wrong.
Scientific theories must be able to generate testable hypotheses; however; they do not depend on the outcome of any single hypothesis test. “Models (Theories)” are not proposed in hypothesis tests. Hypotheses test specific ‘possible’ conditions and relationships that ‘may’ be consistent with a scientific theory.
Hypotheses are very narrowly defined; they are precise and specific. Defining a testable hypothesis is, in fact, the most difficult task in the scientific process. I challenge you to come up with a valid scientific hypothesis regarding global warming – and remember, you must also specify the test(s) that will be used and explain why and how the test(s) outcome(s) measure(s) only what you claim to be measuring and not some other variable.
There is no single hypothesis test for AGW – or any scientific - theory.
You clearly do not understand the concepts of model calibration and validation in scientific statistical analysis because the climate “models” that are used validate with significant strength. Until you understand this, you are hopelessly lost in even trying to begin to define a scientific hypothesis.
=====
Cyclops --
When did you become a greenie-warmist-alarmist?
It's interesting that you would focus on an initial transition effect that James Hansen and others predicted theoretically over 20 years ago before we had actual ice core data demonstrating the effect.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/2...
The real question is where the excess heat trapped by an ever thickening blanket of greenhouse gases goes. The atmospheric temperatures have risen far less than the CO2 index would indicate...and this confuses a lot of people. The short answer is in the physics. Heat moves from warm to cool. It moves from a less dense medium to a more dense medium. The 'more dense medium' is ice first and sea water second. Massive amounts of ice are now melting as this medium absorbs the atmospheric heat. Ocean temperatures are very slowly rising as well. Right there you have your cause and effect. Trapped heat is the 'cause', melting ice and warming sea water is the 'effect'. Put you warm beer cans in your ice chest. The beer cools as the ice absorbs the heat energy and melts. The cause of the melting ice is the warm beer and the leakage of warm air into the container. Any 'scientist' who 'believes' in the reverse isn't really a 'scientist'.
Your statement is incorrect.
Experimental evidence that atmospheric gasses including CO2 interact with infrared radiation led scientists to speculate that this greenhouse effect was raising planetary temperatures.
Experimentation in quantum physics showed the mechanism by which this occurred and allowed calculation of the primary effects.
Experimental observation of atmospheric CO2 since the 1950's show a relatively rapid rise, equal to about 1/2 the CO2 output from commercially recorded fossil fuel use. This rise tracks year-to-year commercial records and has the same nuclear signature as fossil carbon.
Experimental analysis of ice cores has shown that atmospheric CO2 has increased in the past following planetary warming. The apparent reason for this is release of CO2 from warming oceans. There is no evidence that this is occurring today, indeed the oceans are absorbing almost half the CO2 we put out. That's expected to change as the surface ocean heats up, with approximately the same lag-times as the ice core data.
There is an experimentally tested causal relationship between CO2 and heat retention.
There are observational and commercial records of the amount of fossil carbon we're adding to the atmosphere.
The noisiest available record of global heat retention is atmospheric temperature.
Plausibility, explanation of the process, and elimination of all other possibilities.
We never get to 100% certainty with any scientific theory but we can become highly confident. We know that past climate change can only be explained if increased CO2 causes warming. We can see that the correlation is high enough that it is not random. One must be causing the other, or a third cause must be causing both together. We know of no other third cause, and we can eliminate the possibility that warming in causing CO2 because there is no process by which temperature can pull CO2 out of the ground and because we know the oceans are absorbing CO2 rather than giving off.
Typically we develop a theory and test it. If the theory is proved impossible, then it must be either adjusted or discarded. By constant adjustments based on testing, the theory becomes increasingly able to explain observations while alternate theories can be eliminated as impossible.
***************
Ask Kano to explain where the atmospheric CO2 is coming from. He has no answer to that. His answer is proved impossible.
How did you arrive at your 'belief' in the causality of the relationship, when you are one who is unaware of how such causality is inferred scientifically?
There are many Internet sources that provide detailed descriptions of the scientific method. An Internet search would have provided hundreds in less than a second.
Among other things, there must be no other causes that could account for the correlation. Global temperatures have always correlated more closely with various measures of solar activity than they have with CO2.
The correlation between global temps and CO2 has been non-existent over the last 15 years.
One of the criteria for inferring causality is that the model proposed in the hypothesis must be validated empirically; that is, it must correctly predict real events in multiple experiments. There must not be a single failure.
The models used in the global warming hypothesis have failed to validate over and over again, yet the 'belief' persists.
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power."
--Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls,as interviewed by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “factum“. Translated from the German.
--
Caliservative: temperature have no correlation with solar output for the past 50 years. Therefor, from your conclusion, why you are basically pointing to changes in solar output, which have been declining for 50 years, is just a little crazy. Where are all those fault logic arguments when you need them?
Cyclops: Because something has occurred in the past that does not mean that other things can occur in the present. It is well known that there are many things that can affect climate. Only paying attention to one of them while ignoring others is ignoring reality and cherry picking. Look up the term 'poisitive feedback'.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
(Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
- B?rbel H?nisch, N. Gary Hemming, David Archer, Mark Siddall, Jerry F. McManus
"The lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition."
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Issue 5, March 2000)
- Andreas Inderm¨uhle, Eric Monnin, Bernhard Stauer, Thomas F. Stocker
"The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr."
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Volume 291. Number 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André D?llenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola
"The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years."
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Volume 283, Number 5408, pp. 1712-1714, March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, Volume 318, Issue 5849, September 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka (PDF)
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science, Volume 299, Number 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
Vostock ice cores shows that CO2 lags behind temperature by hundreds of years, making me believe that rising temps cause oceans to out-gas CO2, and NOT CO2 causing temperature rise.
Edit.
Baccheus now most Co2 is coming from burning fossil fuels,
But since earliest history this planet there have been large amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere, we live on a planet that has large amounts of carbon, and 20% oxygen in our atmosphere, there will always be chemical interactions which make CO2.
There are CO2 cycles, oceans absorb and make calcium carbonates, plants absorb and make carbon which can decompose and produce CO2, volcanoes emit CO2.
CO2 increases temperature but because it logarithmically reduces as concentration increases it is only possible to cause a 3.6 degree rise most of which has already happened, so without some other mechanism such as positive feed-backs it cannot produce large temperature swings
Well, that relationship would have to exist first! Co2 concentration and global temperature are not correlated.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/83914...
to believe that the first phenomenon has caused the second. What would it take to be certain that this relation represents a cause and effect relationship?
