famousringo said:
Linkzmax said:
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. |
I don't see how the bolded assertion refutes anything. The causal relationship of each event on the other is implied as the explanation describes a feedback loop between temperature and CO2 levels. It doesn't really matter which cause has more of an effect on the other, as the loop keeps feeding on itself. I'm puzzled by your assertion that manmade CO2 emmissions are miniscule. I guess this chart would be why: 
Do you have different data on global CO2 levels which contradicts this? |
I wasn't only speaking about CO2, but while it is higher than ever before that doesn't prove that the majority of the contributions areman-made.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html seems a bit outdated, as some of its sources have been updated, but it points to ~5% of greenhouse gases being man-made, and only ~.3% once you include water vapor which is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas.
