Thursday, August 13, 2015

On the Fact that Net Global CO2 Emissions Have Increased at a Linear Rate While the Human CO2 Contribution Hasn't (a Huge Spike Occurring After 2002) and In Fact There's Has Been a Major Departure Between these Two Trend Lines

This is strong evidence that even the atmospheric CO2 increases aren't predominantly the end result of human activity but rather a by-product of the natural increases in temperature. I strongly recommend this lecture by Murry Salby - - and I would pay particular attention to the graph which shows how the net increases in CO2 vary by as much as 100% per annum and of how they appear to be strongly influenced by surface temperature - NOT VICE VERSA.


BB-Idaho said...

Sounds like the chicken and the egg, which came first dilemma.
"The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature" But "And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels." All agree there is an
correlation, and the feedback loop physics explain it both ways.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The problem with the CO2 driving temperature theory (and I'm not one of those folks who sees it one way) is that a) the effect of CO2 on temperature is a logarithmic one (the first 20 ppm securing the largest effect) and b) the feedbacks loops (as measured by the amount of escaping radiation and by the fact that the temps have stopped correlating with the CO2 for close to 2 decades now), as they are with most natural systems (the human body, for instance), appear to be negative (we've actually had ice ages in which the CO2 levels were far greater than those of today - 400 ppm is actually quite a low level when examined over hundreds of millions of years) .......Here's what we know for certain. a) A doubling of CO2 (all else equal) will get you approximately a 1 degree Celcius temperature rise and b) the correlation of CO2 and temperature over the long haul (millions of years) isn't any better than it's been over the past couple decades. Spotty, very spotty.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I would also assert that the ice cores are one of the worst proxies for measuring CO2 levels in that there are huge dissipative mechanisms at work when extracting the samples. Plant stomata is exceedingly more reliable and when you look at this proxy, the 280 ppm number that the alarmists consider sacrosanct essentially falls by the wayside.............And I really challenge you to watch that CO2 Salby video, BB. Listen to him and then listen to guys like Mann, Jones, and Hanson. Compare and then tell me who's more intelligent.