Thread: Any evidence linking increased carbon dioxide levels to increased temperature?

once again another global warming thread...

I have looked at many graphs relating global temperature and carbon dioxide levels and there is a clear similar trend between them because as one increases so does the other.
However, that doesn't at all proove that because carbon dioxide levels are increasing that is the reason for the increased temperature.
I just looked on google searching "proof of global warming" and "evidence of global warming" for a while and I haven't found any evidence actualy linking that the REASON for the increased temperature on the Earth is because of increased carbon dioxide levels.

If I linked those two it would be as if because the costs of the government are increasing and the carbon dioxide levels on the Earth are increasing then they are connected in some way. If anyone has ANY scientific proof at all for Global Warming please tell me.

I found a site the other day that stated the "greenhouse effect" had been known about since 1850

It is not new science and I suggest you try googling "Greenhouse effect Carbon Dioxide"
The Greenhouse Effect

There are TONS of sites out there explaining this effect simply and easily

This site explains the other "greenhouse gases" as well
greenhouse effect information

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I have looked at many graphs relating global temperature and carbon dioxide levels and there is a clear similar trend between them because as one increases so does the other.
However, that doesn't at all proove that because carbon dioxide levels are increasing that is the reason for the increased temperature.

Global warming like we have seen coming out of the last ice age would
release CO2.
As the globe warms the ice caps melt, that releases trapped CO2. Melting ice
caps and the seas warming evaporates more water vapor into the
atmosphere (a major factor in the greenhouse effect) and releases even
more CO2 trapped in the oceans.

There are a confounding multitude of factors in global climate, the biggest
one remains Earths orbit and how it effects its relationship with the big
hot burning thing in the sky.

There were points in our geologic history where there were no ice caps
and global temperature was MUCH higher than it is now.
The fact is pro anthropomorphic global warming theories and natural
cycle theory is all "new science"--none of it is proven predictive science.

Now do you see why we are less than excited about carbon dioxide? Now can you see why one or five or a dozen Kyotos are expected to have zero measurable impact on planetary temperature? If it requires zero emissions for 70-120 years to 'prevent' 1 °C warming at our pretend linear sensitivity and the best then the world is demonstrably insensitive to anthropogenic carbon emissions, isn't it. And since temperature response to atmospheric carbon is logarithmic rather than linear then the above estimates are wildly optimistic. In fact, there remains no evidence that humans would ever be able to emit sufficient carbon dioxide to cause a +1 °C warming -- any more than failure to emit any amount could 'prevent' such an occurrence.
Of all the things people can do to the planet -- and for sure we are capable of making plenty of alterations to suit ourselves -- the temperature response from carbon dioxide emissions is simply too trivial to worry about.
Think you are 'saving the planet' paying conscience money for trivial amounts of carbon? Sorry, you are getting ripped off. Carbon constraint is a distraction -- a nonsense. Save your money or direct it to some useful purpose, like maybe addressing malaria and lack of potable water, sanitation and development in the third world -- most anything would be better than giving it to con artists and hot air sellers. Anyone who found themselves a bit lost following through the above would probably profit considerably by reviewing our Greenhouse Primer. In fact, it's recommended reading anyway.

Originally Posted by Ronster

Now do you see why we are less than excited about carbon dioxide? Now can you see why one or five or a dozen Kyotos are expected to have zero measurable impact on planetary temperature? If it requires zero emissions for 70-120 years to 'prevent' 1 °C warming at our pretend linear sensitivity and the best then the world is demonstrably insensitive to anthropogenic carbon emissions, isn't it. And since temperature response to atmospheric carbon is logarithmic rather than linear then the above estimates are wildly optimistic. In fact, there remains no evidence that humans would ever be able to emit sufficient carbon dioxide to cause a +1 °C warming -- any more than failure to emit any amount could 'prevent' such an occurrence.
Of all the things people can do to the planet -- and for sure we are capable of making plenty of alterations to suit ourselves -- the temperature response from carbon dioxide emissions is simply too trivial to worry about.
Think you are 'saving the planet' paying conscience money for trivial amounts of carbon? Sorry, you are getting ripped off. Carbon constraint is a distraction -- a nonsense. Save your money or direct it to some useful purpose, like maybe addressing malaria and lack of potable water, sanitation and development in the third world -- most anything would be better than giving it to con artists and hot air sellers. Anyone who found themselves a bit lost following through the above would probably profit considerably by reviewing our Greenhouse Primer. In fact, it's recommended reading anyway.

(((((((sigh!)))))))))) Steve Milloy (The same Steven J Milloy who has a book out called "Silencing Science Steven J. Milloy - SourceWatch) managing to show that he even obscured high school science. Yes that is correct the basic premise of global warming - that CO2 acts like a "greenhouse" is actually out of high school science.

His disingenuousness is proven by the following

Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No, for the same reason that they don't behave like an actual greenhouse, they simply do not behave as a barrier to convective activity and so aren't "like a blanket."

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

By this you can see how he sets up a description himself only to "debunk" it. He himself uses the phrase "like a blanket" and then goes on to say how it is not "like a blanket"

I think before you check out Junkscience website you would be better looking at the so called "challenge" on that website and the rebuttal to the challenge posted here ideonexus.com � Blog Archive � Steve Milloy’s Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

If you are not convinced by the "slight of hand" so called "science" descriptions given by Steve Milloy then the fraudulent way that challenge has been set up should convince you that Milloy is not to be taken seriously.

Here are other links that explain Mr Milloy
Internet Bunk The Junk Science Page
This site is a riot pointing out that Milloy manages to "debunk" a speech that has not been given yet - talk about journalistic integrity!!
Correcting myths from Steven Milloy

I think before you are swamped by junkscience sites you better google the term "astroturf". See there has been a lot of money thrown around by both Exxon Mobil and the power industries to debunk global warming - a good proportion of that money went to set up false "grassroots" organisations known as "Astroturf" sites.

The sky is falling the sky is falling!

Originally Posted by Nerv14

once again another global warming thread...

I have looked at many graphs relating global temperature and carbon dioxide levels and there is a clear similar trend between them because as one increases so does the other.
However, that doesn't at all proove that because carbon dioxide levels are increasing that is the reason for the increased temperature.
I just looked on google searching "proof of global warming" and "evidence of global warming" for a while and I haven't found any evidence actualy linking that the REASON for the increased temperature on the Earth is because of increased carbon dioxide levels.

If I linked those two it would be as if because the costs of the government are increasing and the carbon dioxide levels on the Earth are increasing then they are connected in some way. If anyone has ANY scientific proof at all for Global Warming please tell me.

Yeah, pretty hard to show CO2 causing temperature increases when the temperatures started increasing before the CO2 levels.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

I found a site the other day that stated the "greenhouse effect" had been known about since 1850

It is not new science and I suggest you try googling "Greenhouse effect Carbon Dioxide"
The Greenhouse Effect

There are TONS of sites out there explaining this effect simply and easily

This site explains the other "greenhouse gases" as well
greenhouse effect information

So you mean they discovered the greenhouse effect AFTER the globe started warming, even.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Yeah, pretty hard to show CO2 causing temperature increases when the temperatures started increasing before the CO2 levels.

I am going to look at every posts in an hour or so, but from what I have seen there was actualy increases in CO2 levels during the industrial revolution, but the temperature increases only happened during the 1920's or so. I have a chart that I will show later.

Theoretically, if the planet's surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 K (77 °C). Atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) circumvent much of the greenhouse effect and significantly increase the "escape" of energy to space, leaving Earth's surface more than 60 °C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.
Additionally, greenhouse gases are only able to absorb radiation in very specific electromagnetic frequencies and Earth does not radiate limitless amounts of energy in the appropriate bandwidths. This means there is 'competition' for available energy and significant greenhouse potential is unrealized (carbon dioxide could absorb more than 3 times the energy it currently does in the atmosphere were it not for competition from clouds and water vapor, clouds alone could absorb 50% of available energy but manage to capture just 14% and so on...). So, despite there being far more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to achieve the current greenhouse effect, something which has been true since before humans discovered fire, evapo-transpiration and thermals transport heat higher in the atmosphere where radiation to space is increased. This is why Earth remains about 15 °C (288 K) rather than about 77 °C (350 K).