| Final-Fan said: First, I should note that this graph ends in 1978. I forgot to mention that before. The graph does not start to rise in 1750; it clearly shows a space after the 1750 mark before it rises; and you'll notice that the rate of increase doesn't really take off until about 1850. The rate of increase is pretty damn steep; are you sure that it's not in fact exponential? I can definitely discern an increase in the rate of increase. And a really thorough analysis would account for the switch from coal to oil. A different CO2 graph. This one stretches out the graph, revealing that an exponential curve does exist. I agree that it would be nice to see the earlier graphs, but we have already heard that those earlier CO2 levels do not rise above about 300 ppm, a level we passed in the beginning of the 20th century (I think, judging by this graph) and have since left in the dust. (Wikipedia says never in the last 800,000 years; Linkzmax's source says not in the last ~375 million years.) The point of the current discussion isn't how much of the TOTAL CO2 we're responsible for but how much of the INCREASE of it. I've shifted away from the main GW debate because as I've said, it's clear that it will be a truly massive debate and I clearly haven't done enough research on it yet; I intend to do this research, but not at a the pace required for doing it in the middle of a debate on what I am researching. All I ask is this: Look at that graph. Know that it goes up another 35 points vertically in a few millimeters horizontally after the graph ends. Then tell me: what makes you think that the cause is mostly natural instead of due to the "exponential" rate of human industrialization? |
First the second graph is better but still not to the point in time that the rates and temperatures were at there highest, which again is the data that is needed for meaningful comparison. You can't make the claim that the current situation is abnormal and not look at the other periods this situation has happened in. It would be like trying to find a cure for a disease without examining any samples of that disease...it makes no sense.
Now, looking at the first graph if we assume the starting point lines up correctly, we still have the issue that the increase in C02 is quite steep initially, actually it is a comparably steep incline to the portion of the graph representing the late 1800's and early 1900s. So unless you and pro-GW scientist want to fight historians about exactly how quickly industrialization occured in the late 1700's and mid 1800s you must concede that they do not fit properly.
Is there a connection? There is probably a case to be made there, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causation. This is not a new concept in science or logic, and has been accepted for some time. Correlations are justification for further research not confirmation of theory. And certainly not the basis of an argument.
As for defining the debate, the increase and total are completely related, I fail to see why they aren't part of the same larger issue. Really I fundamentally object to the exclusion of all of the larger topics you are asking us to not consider. You see as I said early one of my major points coming into this debate is that the GW topic in general was seriously lacking in context so I have a very big issue with you attempting to remove that context even further.
Responding to your final paragraph. This entire post was basically telling me what data to use, what portions of the graph to look at and in general you are trying to take all of the thought out of it and say "here look at it exactly like I want you to and then tell me what you think".
I actually even went along with that in my last post and used the entire increase in C02 over the last 250 years and assumed that ALL of it was man-made to get that ~ 6.5% number. But you didn't even bother to respond to the fact that I used numbers and figures from YOUR graphs and from websites YOU personally have sited data from and you still don't accept it?
To be honest I don't think that the C02 increase is independant of man-kind's influence, and never said it was, I just don't think the C02 increase means a damn thing on the larger scale when put in context with larger climate drivers. Which is why I have a hard time sitting here letting you phrase the debate to your liking only.
edit: To be clear, if you don't feel up to this debate then just step out. But trying to frame it in only the areas you feel comfortable in essentially says that you don't have a grasp on the bigger picture which is fundamental to understanding the overall picture. Again, I don't claim to be an expert but that doesn't stop me from addressing all of the issues.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
