Global Warming

Friends of Science, a Canadian based group, presents this graph which shows a closer correlation between rising temperatures and sunspots than CO2. I'm not particularly interested in hearing about whether this group is one that does junk science or other ad hominem attacks on the group. Are the facts in the graph accurate? Can the obvious implications of the information be undermined by other facts or analyses?Is it more likely that there is a sunspot connection than CO2?If CO2 is responsible, why does the "temperature anomaly" precede the CO2 increase?Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Lacking the expertise to analyse the paper and determine whether the criticism is valid or not, I move to my second question.How can CO2 be responsible for the "temperature anomaly" if the temperature rise began before the CO2 rise did?At least one person thinks the causation may go in the other direction.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Of course, if Essenhigh is correct, anthrogenic CO2 isn't responsible for any of it. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GlobalWarming/dispatch100700.htmlThe Columbus Dispatch

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Sorry, I get null content on that. Explain please?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Still a little fuzzy on the "feedback/forcing" distinction. That piece seemed to assume familiarity with those terms rather than explaining them.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That doesn't make any sense to me. I would agree that particular water molecules don't hang around in the atmosphere, but those that precipitate out are simply replaced through subsequent evaporation. Either way, the water vapor is there.If you're trying to say that water vapor doesn't play a role in the greenhouse effect (and I really don't think that's what you meant), everything that I've ever read contradicts that. If you're not saying that, I'm not sure what the point is that you were making.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, that graph doesn't seem to say a thing about anthropogenic CO2. It does show that the planet has gone through a series of regular heating and cooling periods and, if we assume that regularity to be continuing, we should be at the peak of one right now. It also looks to me like the CO2 level changes before the temperature, at least in several places. This suggests that Essenhigh is correct, that the temperature change is driving the CO2, rather than the other way around.The graph certainly supports the notion that there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but as we all know, correlation does not prove causation. In any event, it's clear from the graph that CO2 and temperature have been fluctuating together for much, much longer than man has had the ability to influence either one, even assuming we do now.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm very far afield from any area that I'm familiar with, so I'm trying to take things in small steps. Just thinking about this, it seems to me that as the temperature rises, there's more water vapor in the air. More water vapor equals greater greenhouse effect. It's completely counterintuitive to me that if there's more water vapor in the air, the water vapor wouldn't play a larger role in the greenhouse effect. Essenhigh's thesis has more to do with his belief that the effect of water vapor and clouds has been underestimated and the effect of CO2 has been overestimated, than any question of whether changes in the water vapor level are driving global warming. In addition, he points out that the amount of CO2 created naturally dwarfs even the largest estimates of man made CO2.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

By golly, it sure does say that, doesn't it?Of course, as I said, it doesn't say anything at all about it being anthropogenic. But you think it must be anthropogenic, so I guess it must be.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I didn't say anything was unknown.I didn't say anything about how much CO2 humans produce.I didn't say anything about what happens to CO2.I didn't say anything about non-human produced CO2.I didn't say anything about proving how much of the rise in CO2 is attributable to humans.All I said was that the graph that fallacy cop linked to didn't say anything about anthropogenic CO2, despite his representation that the graph would make it clear.Honestly, crash, if you'd stop reading everything that people write through your left-polarized glasses, I really think you'd have an easier time understanding what people are actually saying, rather than what you think they must be saying based on your assessment of what they believe.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please either find where I said that or get your glasses checked.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat