Thread: Survey for Climate Change Sceptics

Originally Posted by angelman

Poptech can you provide one or two links showing temperature rise preceded increased CO2 levels?

Clippo can you provide one or two links showing increased CO2 levels preceded a rise in temperature?

I chose the two of you as you seem to be diametrically opposed and both are vociferous and well versed in your respective arguments. Me, as Clippo will know am a sceptic, but I should point out that I am prepared to accept a "Road to Damascus" moment if and when it ever comes.

I will likely reply to one or two other posts on this thread when I have the time, but as it is one of the shortest posts I might as well start with yours.
I daresay Clippo will add his own answer later.

It all depends on what time period you are considering, really. If you are considering the long-term, such as the last 800k years (furthest back we can currently go with reasonable accuracy, as the current longest ice core record goes this far back and longer-term sedimentary cores give us more information on whether it was 'hot' or 'cold' than they do actual temperature data), then when major climatological shifts have occurred there has usually been a time lag of about 800 years in between the beginning of a temperature rise and the beginning of an accompanying rise in CO2.

Any graph of this timescale which shows CO2 rising prior to temperature is almost certainly lying, therefore, and I'd advise you to take the provider to account.

This has been known by climatologists for quite some time, and the explanation is that the initial cause of the temperature rise is indeed not CO2 but instead some other factor, such as orbital variation, solar activity and other such things.

CO2 is then released from sinks by the warming through various mechanisms, such as the melting of ice containing CO2, expansion and gassing of peat bogs and various other things.

The CO2 is therefore not responsible for any initial rise, as anyone can plainly see.
However, once it begins to be released, it acts as a positive feedback mechanism and reinforces the warming trend, potentially releasing more CO2, which further acts to reinforce the trend, and so on and so forth.

In some cases CO2 becomes the primary forcing affecting climate at the time as the initial forcing reverses.
It's not always CO2, although it is believed that this is usually the case
There's no reason it has to be CO2, though; merely how things turn out.

Originally Posted by Poptech

Looks like the culprit must gave been SUVs!

The point is many glaciers are not melting and those that have, have been doing so since the end of the Little Ice Age which has nothing to do with CO2.

Your point is that many are not melting when your own sources state that most are?
I think that when most are we might want to consider the possibility that something's happening.

Originally Posted by angelman

Wasn't this one of Al Gore's claims?

I'm not sure.
I seem to recall from when I watched AIT that he stated something about a 'complicated relationship' but that it summarised to 'they rise and fall in step' or something, so I suppose you could say so.

As it is, I wouldn't trust Gore's statements when they relate directly to the theory. He isn't a scientist.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Yes,we noticed that you lot have upped your dumping of the Al Gore programme significantly of late,Akria.

I invite you to look at some of my earlier posts in this forum.
I have never differed in my viewpoint. AIT is a good film but a bad documentary.
Gore is no scientist and AIT shows this very clearly.