| | | That's much better than your claims about CO flooding, since its about the World, not an area less than 1000th the size of the land surface of the Earth.
OTOH its only about 130 datapoints, some of the data in those datapoints might be rather dubious, and even if you accept that data its flat recently and didn't have much of a trend from 1940 to 1980 when there was a lot of CO2 emitted.
Still even with some problems with the data it is clear the Earth has been in a warming trend (the 15 or so years at the end isn't long enough or severe enough to reasonably be considered a break in the trend)
Of course the warming started back when the little ice age ended (before the beginning of your chart and before the CO2 emissions where anywhere near modern levels), and you have a weaker and less steady trend since the end of the last full scale ice age.
But CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and obviously its a contributor. That's not in doubt. What is in doubt is feedback beyond the CO2. (Things like ice melting, thus reducing albedo, thus contributing to more warming, is a good example of positive feedback. Also warmer temperatures causing more water to evaporate, with water vapor itself being a greenhouse gas. Feedback in the other direction would be things like extra water vapor causing extra clouds and the clouds reflect more sunlight, and extra CO2 increasing plant growth with the extra plant mass taking up some of the extra CO2.) Feedback from changes in the CO2 emitted by bacteria and fungi in response to changes in temperature has been variously estimated as positive or negative. The overall feedback from non CO2 sources is apparently positive, but you get a big difference between a small positive and a large positive, and you need a very large positive to make most of the doom scenarios at all realalistic. |
|
