args

Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

Round 3: Refutation of opponents argument "This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years." Point 1 Temperature and CO2 - Vostok ice-core In Con's graph associated with the above quoted text, what you actually see is Co2 levels increasing fairly consistently with a rise in temperature. However what you also see is the temperature dropping suddenly with a much greater lag in Co2 levels dropping that you see on the rising side of these peaks. If Co2 is the main contributing factor in global temperature, then how could the temperature drop thousands of years before the Co2 levels. Con's graph in this case actually serves to illustrate that Co2 levels are NOT the main contributing factor in global temperature. Point 2 The next graph provided by Con only covers the years between 1850 and 2013, We definitely see a rise in temperature along side the rise of Co2 levels, but what does this mean? In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature. The only problem is that humans were not present in our current industrial state during the peak shown between 350,000-300,000, nor were we present during the peak between 250,000-200,000, and AGAIN we weren't present during the peak between 150,000-100,000! The only peak we are present for is the one between 50,000 and current, and this last peak looks identical to all the other peaks that have occurred during this ice age! The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. Lastly, Con provided a link to Perfluorotributylamine, this gas is extremely rare less than 1 part per trillion. precisely 0.18 parts per trillion, that is less than 2/10ths of 1 part per trillion. I can't even begin to explain how rare that is. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation. They are based on a consensus which is fueled by our desire to "Not break the planet" I understand this desire, there is no argument that pollution is good. But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial periods on pollution isn't going to help us better understand our environment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... If our Co2 centric models are actually the least accurate, then how can we expect speculative models like the "NO HUMAN INFLUNCE" model to mean anything but "PLEASE SUPPORT US EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE IS WRONG" Consensus is only evoked when the science isn't strong enough.