Why do GW skeptics claim that CO2 follows temperature?

Question

In a question related to how great he thinks I am, 'Always 100 percent accurate' (and ironic name) claimed that atmospheric CO2 increase [always] follows a global temperature increase. I've heard that argument here several times from GW skeptics, but why do they keep making it?

If you examine the following 2 plots from 1960-Present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

You'll see that atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are increasing at the same time, with temperature lagging slightly behind CO2 increase.

The logic is that because CO2 followed temperature increases in the past, it must always follow in that order, but that's a logical fallacy. Of course CO2 can cause a temperature change because it's a greenhouse gas! 1 more plot worth examining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

So why do GW skeptics keep repeating this false claim?

j b, the massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere compensate for its relatively low GW potential. As for water vapor:

"Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

In this case, increased water vapor follows increased temperature, which follows increased CO2 concentrations.

As for models, look at my third linked plot. Solar variations are just one component to accurate GW models.

Mc - as usual, you miss the point entirely. Your plot is the historical data I mentioned in my question. Since I mentioned it, obviously I didn't ignore it! Please pay closer attention.

3DM, are you illiterate? Show me one place where I said "temperature does not cause a significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere".

In fact I said that temperature HAS increased CO2 in the atmosphere! The point of the question is that atmospheric CO2 can also increase BEFORE global temperature.

Nice strawman argument though. So typical of GW skeptics.

Answer 1

It's pretty funny. What they say supports man made global warming.

In past natural warmings CO2 did lag warming, by hundreds of years. First th Earth warmed, then CO2 was released by warming oceans.

This time, as you point out, CO2 is going up side by side with temperature.

So it's actually one of the best proofs that global warming is not natural, but caused mostly by man, burning fossil fuels.

Answer 2

Because it sounds amazingly convincing to anyone who hasn't done any research into it. You have to remember, the goal of a contrarian is not to discover whether human-caused global warming is actually real or not, it's to prove themselves right and to hold a contrary view to every single thing you or I say. They have chosen their position on a purely political or religious basis, and have no interest in the science behind the theory whatsoever. So as long as they're able to sucker in someone who hasn't looked into enough they'll keep using the argument over and over again, even if they've seen it refuted before.

Someone wrote an overview of the contrarian's line of argument that I thought was pretty good. It runs something like this:

"Global warming doesn't exist, and if it does humans aren't responsible, and if we are it's a good thing, and if it isn't there's nothing we can do about it, and if there is we shouldn't because it will ruin the world's economy". Note how arguments saying that global warming doesn't exist, and arguments saying that it's natural are often used side by side, which is yet another mark of pseudo-skepticism. They couldn't possibly care less whether their arguments contradict each other so long as they're arguments against what =you= have said.

Answer 3

I don't care who is right. The fact is we have nothing to lose by reducing our use of fossil fuels using reasonable means.

We need to get off foriegn oil. We don't want to pollute our planet, so lets start doing something about it.

We real engineers and scientists know that there are many theories on the global warming question, and the facts will work their way to the top. It is like any newer theories, it takes time and more facts for everyone to buy in. Nothing wrong with that. The globe has been warming for hundreds of years and relatively recently shows an increased rate. Many good people are studying this.

But we can go ahead and reduce our use of fossil fuel now and get rapid benefits even if the earth suddenly began to cool.

Answer 4

How can someone who boasts of multiple degrees in science not have a handle on the basic physical science taught in middle or high school.

You know nothing of solubility, do you?
You don't have a clear understanding of how CO2 reenters the carbon cycle from the atmosphere (all those who immediately thought photosynthesis as the only way - ANNNNNNH!! go to the back of the line.)

Your ignorance in claiming that a raise in temperature does not cause a significant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere disqualifies you from having ANY credibility in this issue. That goes double for your sycophants.

You see, I can acknowledge that man has a measurable impact in increasing GHGs, and that an increase in the greenhouse effect results in an increase in global temperatures. But you have demonstrated your lack of knowlege in ignoring VERY basic science.

Answer 5

The GW skeptics are correct. An increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere leads to global warming.

I will explain the process. When the atmosphere is normal it uses greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane gase and carbon monoxide to trap heat in the atmosphere. The heat that escapes is reflected back into space. However when more carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere the more heat is trapped and less heat escapes.

This extra carbon dioxide comes from human devices such as cars and burning coal.

Interesting fact: The charts that have shown the increase of temperature and carbon dioxide is almost EXACTLY the same.

Answer 6

Because skeptics are largely in the business of regurgitating the same poor arguments their heard from a biased source once-upon-a-time. Those who choose to be educated on the issues are proactive, and, as you have here, will seek out the evidence that refutes these claims made by the global warming skeptics. Skeptics are mostly skeptics because they don't want or fear change, such that they'll gladly stick with their niche until they have no choice but to give up, or they're ready to go along with the growing crowd of those who accept the science because they find it actually in their best interest that the issue is addressed.

Answer 7

I am a W supporter. However I do believe that some of his environmental policies need to have some tweeking. China does have the largest population in the world. They are also a communist country that forbids the freedom of speech & religion. If you convert to christianity in China more than likely you will be sentenced to a labor camp. In my own personal opinion the co2s that are produced in China might come from some of those prision labor camp. Look at the majority of the products that are produced today. It might have been made with slave labor.

Answer 8

why are you talking about CO2? CO2 is barely a green house gas. Look at your basic chemistry. What makes a green house gas is polarity. A polar molecule absorbs and releases energy in a why that promotes the green house effect. Water vapor is probably the most polar gas and is thus the most powerful green house gas. CO2 is not always a polar molecule, it occilates between being polar and not being polar through a periodic bending of one of the CO bonds but tending to favor the not polar configuration. Thus CO2 is a very very minor greenhouse gas and unlikely to play a major role in any warming cycles. More concern should be focus on water vapor in the atmosphere, relative reflectiveness level of particles in the atmosphere, and the amount and intensity of sunlight reaching earth.

As far as the argument of whether or not CO2 or temperature leads. Science is not just looking at a chart and saying two things are related in such and such a way. Science is seeing two things might be related, make predictions about the relationship, conducting tests on predictions, and then reassessing. So far temperature predictions based off of CO2 levels have failed to be exact as CO2 levels based off of Temperature data and Temperature data based off of solar activity. And Temperature data based off of solar activity is thus far the only weather model that has made predictions of over a year in advance that have consistanly come to pass.

Answer 9

In the absence of any real scientific evidence to back up their claims, some skeptics repeatedly use the same weak arguments despite the fact that they can very easily be shown to be invalid. This however rarely seems to make a differnece as the same arguments are repeated again and again and again. If they were able to find anything substantial to validate their arguments they'd use it, but as you know, there is nothing substantial which is why is the same tired old excuses constantly being repeated.

Answer 10

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/IceCores1.gif

Here's a study that shows it does, you can't ignore the studies which contradict your ideas and only look at the ones that support them.

Find a graph that shows both of them together, you can't compare two factors on different graphs. The graph I provided is historical but you were supposed to see that the current trend shows warming before CO2, the CO2 levels have spiked after the major temperature spike not before.