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.
Debate.org
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
