what if the chart is backwards?

Question

i just thoguht of something. GW is "caused" by co2 making tempetures higher what if??? The earth is naturally getting higher tempetures causing co2 to rise instead of the opposite??? just a idea the chart could be read differnetly could'nt it ?? you could say higher co2 =higher tempetures but also could be said that higher tempteures= high co2 levels???

(I think GW isnt caused by us)But would you possibly think it could be the other way around???

Answer 1

Interesting theory
I feel sure that if someone at MIT sees this question, They will conduct a Multi-billion dollar research program lasting years that will come to the conclusion that.
They didn't understand the question

Answer 2

No, and here's why.

Previous warmings thousands of years ago did start for natural reasons and then CO2 was released from warming ocean waters. But the process takes a long time, hundreds of years. So the data clearly shows a lag between when the warming started and when CO2 started to rise.

This time is different. CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature. There is no lag. That's because the warming is being caused by CO2 from man's burning of fossil fuels. The data is clear. More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Which is why Admiral Truly says this:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT - open4one. Science works by data (numbers) not "logic". Which is why (note the word "quantitative"):

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA (who is a climatologist)

Answer 3

It would be a possibility, except we understand the physical properties of CO2. We know that it absorbs emits radiation and at what wavelengths.

The fact that CO2 has risen after temperatures in the past means only that something else started the warming trend, not CO2. Which makes sense, since there weren't any humans around then emitting any CO2.

Answer 4

for many reasons the increase in co2 concentration over the last hundred years is known to be due to human activity. This is not disputed by even skeptical scientists. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is also not disputed. The only thing disputed is how much of the warming is caused by CO2.


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html#known

edit

Fred Singer has a lot of interesting theories, he denies the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, he denies the link between UV light and skin cancer, and cigarette smoke and lung cancer. He is involved with many right wing organizations and frankly is getting a little too old for serious scientific thought.

Answer 5

No. Here's why. For naturally occurring higher temperatures to cause an increase in CO2 would require a source fo r the CO2. Suppose, for example, that there had been an excess of CO2 in the oceans (there is a lot dissolved in seawater). The temperature increase would cause CO2 to leave the seawater and enter the atmosphere. BUT--for your hypothesis to be correct, that would mean that CO2 concentrations would have to have decreased--but they haven't--they are increasing as the oceans absorb more CO2 due to the higher concentrations in the atmosphere.

The same holds true generally--there is no natural source of CO2 to drie the model you suggest.

And--sorry--but the relality of the humancauses of global warming--mainly those CO2 emissions--isn't a mattter of opinion--mine, yours, or anyone else's. Its a proven fact--there IS no debate any longer.

Answer 6

This argument appears in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video. In it they show how the rise in CO2 happens after the rise in temperature. Trouble is that in those past examples CO2 rises thousands of years after the temperature rises, while what we are seeing now is a rise of both in the same 200 year period.

Answer 7

And your first answer goes right back to where you started.

You are correct, it looks like there is a connection between CO2 and warming, but connection isn't causation.

Okay, so Admiral Truly was an astronaut. That doesn't make him a Climatologist, but S. Fred Singer is one. Founding director of the US national Weather Satellite Service, found dean of the University of Miamit School of Environmental and Planetary Scienses, and former vice chair of the US National Advisory Committe on Oceans and Atmosphere, and author of several books.

He says it's not man made. I believe him, because (unlike the alarmists) he explains his reasoning logically.

Answer 8

Take a close look at that idiot Al Gore's chart in that propaganda movie "An Inconvenient Truth". The chart shows just that! That the temperature goes up before the CO2 goes up! I don't think that that dumb *** ever looked at his own chart!

Answer 9

That is the way it has always worked in the past, the results of climate models are the only data that supports the atmosphere warming the surface, in this epoch.