Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (3273)	12/2/2008 2:32:00 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86352

“Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?" On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is a reasonable question. it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers. Which isn't an argument or an answer. First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. No, Barton was talking about a 600K long ice core record which shows lags of 200-1000 years. Perfectly okay to call that historic. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. Not true. Most human generated CO2 has come in the last 50 yrs. But the warmest year of the past century was back in the 1930's. And .. Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred. eteam.ncpa.org If CO2 had led temperature over the last century, we'd see something different. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. It doesn't matter why CO2 is increasing now. CO2 is CO2. In fact, we don't see CO2 leading temperature now, over the past century, or over the past 600K years. Thats the observation. Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change Its not an idea, its not a case of "might be". Its a real observation. Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. After paragraphs of obsfucation, comes the admission. Thank you. Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton Another paragraph of obsfucation, then another admission. Enough is enough. What you get from realclimate is spin being passed off as science.