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

[Final-Fan]

I am not trying to use the CO2 argument as a platform to say "I'm right on this small issue so I'm right on the entire GW debate". I'm trying to argue that the recent dramatic increase in CO2 levels is in all likelihood due to human causes.

If you don't want to restrict yourself to this small area, that's fine, but don't accuse me of things I'm not attempting.

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.

You have completely missed what I thought I pretty specifically laid out:

I do want to continue on one very specific point, however: how much humans have contributed to the rising levels of CO2.

Not "CO2 and therefore global warming". (What would be the point of saying "I'm not going to participate in this debate right now" and then trying to sneak in the backdoor when nobody's looking?) CO2.

Now, on to your counterpoints:

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.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you believe the rate of change of CO2 was greater in these earlier periods? We have no data AFAIK capable of that kind of accuracy going back further than the ice cores, which go back less than 1 million years, which is far less than you want. If we have something that says, "BOOM CO2 went up 1,000 points in 10,000 years" (and that would certainly be an extreme increase!) that's a geological eyeblink but averages out to 0.1 points per year, while the period 1832 to 2007 has seen a rate of 0.57 and 1960-2006 it's been closer to 1.67!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere )

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.

That's a good point, but you may notice that one temperature jump in particular looks like an outlier. Other than that one dot, it's almost a straight-line increase to the late 1800s. Or, if we assume it is accurate, there is indeed an oddity where CO2 rate-of-increase jumped towards the end of the 18th century but slackened off in the early-mid 19th before skyrocketing. [edit: slight correction to timeline]

Hell, maybe the 1700s increase isn't primarily human-caused after all. But that doesn't explain the rest.

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.

If there's one potential cause that correlates very strongly to a result and the others do not, I'd call that sound basis for an argument. I have asked you for alternative hypotheses for the massive increase at the end of the measurement which you have been unable to provide.

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.

As I have explained, I am no longer talking about global warming, I am talking about the increase in CO2 in recent centuries and the cause of that increase. If you think (presumably non-human-caused) GW caused that increase, well, I have my doubts but you can certainly make that argument.

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".

Ah, no. It is a fact that the graph ends in 1978 at about 337 ppm; that the present total has increased about (correction) 40 ppm from that time to 2004 according to this source; that such a time period would be not more than "a few millimeters". I asked you to consider the amended data and provide me a hypothesis other than human industry that might explain it. I don't see how asking you to look at DATA is asking you to "look at it exactly like I want you to". If I sounded condescending or haughty, it was completely inadvertent, I assure you.

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.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BUT ABOUT CO2 AND WHETHER MOST OF ITS INCREASE FROM ~280 PPM TO ~380 PPM IN A MATTER OF TWO CENTURIES IS DUE TO MANKIND OR NOT.