Is it possible that the warming of the planet is what is causing increasing CO2 levels and not the other way?

Question

The very basic synopsis of this theory is that variations in solar activity have warming and cooling effects on the planet over time and as this changes the temperature of the oceans, the oceans turn from CO2 emitter (when warm) to CO2 sink (when cool) - thus making CO2 a mere by-product (and not the cause) of a warmer planet - this is why Al Gore's charts showing the correlation between warmer temperatures and CO2 levels looked so impressive.

I have never been a climate-change sceptic, because it is indisputable that the temperature of the earth has risen markedly since the early 1970s (it actually dropped markedly from the 1940s to the early 70s, and if you look back at literature from the 70s, you will see that the great fear was, in fact, global cooling!)

It is also very interesting to bear in mind the motivation of the very wide array of people who have a vested interest in promoting the theory of man-made climate change - and it goes right across the political spectrum

Click on the link below and post your comments. Are we being bluffed?

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Answer 1

Global cooling was never as much a scientific consensus.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Click on the link below about that TV show.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

You can calculate how much CO2 the oceans release as they warm. Climatologists (surprise) did that. It's not enough to cause global warming, it may be enough to speed it up.

By the way they also measure changes in solar radiation and include that in their analyses.

There's at least as much "vested interest" in the global warming deniers. That is, per denier. They're vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe it's real.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Answer 2

scenario 2 will reason only as plenty warming as scenario a million.... spectacular when you magically replace CO2 to have one hundred cases extra greenhouse reactivity. C'mon, who do you think of you're fooling? all your doing is thinking the ratio of enhance, and ditching each little thing else that concerns in the argument, particularly the values themselves. we are residing in a international that does have actual barriers, consistent chemical homes, and set of physics no longer undertaking to alter that regulations existance. go forward and step in an enclosed section with a CO2 concentration of scenario a million. for the reason which you think of ignoring plausibility is easily nice in the actual international then you certainly must be ok. do no longer difficulty approximately thinking crimson herring arguments. Dizziness and vomiting would not positioned that on a intense priority.

Answer 3

It's true that a correlation between CO2 and climate warming does not prove that there's a cause and effect relationship. If there is such a relationship we don't know which was the cause and which was the effect.

Answer 4

The one who warmed Earth with its GIANT heater and spewed out large amount Carbon Dioxide is Earth. The Sun and humans' effects are nothing in comparison.

Besides, Carbon Dioxide is nothing in comparison of Dihydrogen Oxide in the terms of strong greenhouse effect, Earth's surface is mostly covered with it and there's a huge amount of it in the Earth's atmosphere despite it's in small percentage.

Answer 5

who cares who is responsible - either way it still sucks.
if it doesnt happen, you know what - the earth is still a crappy place with lots of poor people, and people like us who dont care. but you know what - i dont care - i hope global warming wipes us out! how exciting!