Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Linkzmax]

famousringo said:

Linkzmax said:

Game_boy said:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

So that's just every study ever that sees a sharp rise in temperature correlating with CO2 emissions (which we know have increased dramatically starting 1800? But not you? OK.

You're correct that there is a correlation, but how about thestudies that show there is a large lag after temperature rises before CO2 emissions(and CH4, N20, etc.) rise? There is a lot of evidence that temperature is the cause and not the effect of emissions.

Note that in this graph the the x-axis represents time further back form the present. That is the right side is further in the past.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html

Here's the explanation for the CO2 lag:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html

"So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change."

 From the very article I linked:

"The work proving the lag was recently explained in Scientific American as well as RealClimate where they also essentially claim that you can easily produce a time machine as long as you want to travel only 800 years - or anything less than 5,000 years - to your past.

See also: CO₂ lag and how alarmists think

I leave it up to you whether you learn just the hard data or also their bizarre interpretation, and whether you will think that the RealClimate people are sane according to this interpretation. I personally don't think so. They would be right if they said that 90% of the time, the temperature and gas concentrations move together, and if you could hide the remaining 10% of the data, you couldn't learn the direction of the causal relationship.

But scientists who don't want to close their eyes can look at these critical 10% of the data, too. The result of such an analysis is that the impact of temperatures on gas concentrations is much stronger than the opposite influences, including the greenhouse effect. This fact can be extracted from the time periods where the trend is changing but because the physical laws themselves don't change, it is very clear that in the remaining periods, it is still true that the influence of temperature on the gases is stronger than the opposite influence. The only way to hide this conclusion is censorship, witch hunts, and burning of heretics at stake. There is no scientific way to deny this clear conclusion from the data."

 

Also, the amount of manmade emissions is miniscule compared to the natural emissions after a natural rise in temperature due to mostly cosmic factors.