[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Hi a_a, only a year doing the atmospheric sciences MSc from '93.

rprt, oil yes but IIRC a subsequent (most likely desparate) move to coal and coal-derived fuels as an energy source could result in CO2 ending up near to 1000ppb.

But I think lots of coal isn't as recoverable as some people think.

If you look at energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) there is lots of coal down there that is simply unrecoverable.

Anyway, it's a moot point. We're screwed before we find out either way.

Have we all done yet?

Everyone is busy insulating their home, chopping wood, seeking out the best CO2 reduction/£ they can get from investing in alternative energy, planning a move nearer to work so that they can commute by bike, taking bottles to the bottle bank (or to get their pfand back), ripping out the gas central heating and using the pipes/radiators to make heat exchangers... .

Have we all done yet?

Alas, I think we're not even started.

I supose your right but I will say it's been a very illuminating on many levels.

snows melting now. oh no, maybe global warming is true after all! i feel such a fool for doubting it.

That's a shame m_cozzy as I believed the scientific community was close to changing its mind based on your rigourous analysis and incisive comments.

I don't know what to think now?

leaving the CC arguments aside, and going back to the economics debate on the last page, some of you may be interested in reading the prosperity without growth document published by the sustainable development commission last year (i think). its a really interesting paper on how we can continue to prosper without the necessity of growing our economies.

🙂

[url= http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914 ]prosperity without growth[/url]

incidentally partly written by my favorite lecturer 8)

Too much CO2 being emitted here!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Who'd have thought it? 😉

Hainey you must be in utter shock that someone can admit they were mistaken or wrong – certainly something we could NOT accuse you of 😀
One incorrect claim hardly means everything else is incorrect.
Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept

1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle

Is this still your view?

I'm waiting for Hainey's top secret WMD mate to turn up at the Chilcot enquiry and set the record straight 🙂

LOL, Junkyard, touched a nerve?

I was just wondering what your thoughts were regarding your high integrity scientists at the IPCC?

😉

Hainey did you read the article or indeed the one in New scientist on this Very point."The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report."

The discrepancy is only as to rate and region refered to. Syed Hasnain's work was confined to one region of the Hymalayas a lasy journalist wrote it up as the hymalias and it then was refrenced in a report when it should not of been . Very bad on the report writers at least it has been corrected by those dodgy climate scientist types .

The Times own agenda should be born in mind when reading any article the create .

"I was just wondering what you're thoughts were regarding your high integrity scientists at the IPCC?" There idiots to shoot themselves in the foot and lay the debate open to sabotage by those who will latch on this as a reason to ignore the reality they don't understand.

Yes, i read the article in the Sunday Times yesterday and was appalled at the deception in trying to mis-lead the public! 😉

The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report.

But the whole point is that the [b]rate[/b] of loss is supposed to correlate with, and has been used as evidence of an unprecedented [b]rate[/b] of temperature increase, which is itself correlated with an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 - cause and effect.

if the rate of glacier loss is not [i]unprecedented[/i] then it doesn't support the claimed temperature rise.

Zulu-Eleven, as usual a fair point that requires some thought to deal with (hence why i usually leave it to others to challenge you.)
The expected rate is not really established in either the times or the new scientist so that does not really take us any where. The regional point is perhaps an issue as the rate of melt seems to be affected by the black carbon question ie polution landing on the glacier effects it's melt rate. See outside it's always the mucky snow that melts last.

The real questions are what impact did this article and report have on the overall debate if any ? and did it impact on the actual science at all?

hainey I shall answer your question then hopefully you will answer mine

Junkyard, touched a nerve?

Your turn

Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept

1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle

Is this still your view?

Junkyard I am not going around in circles with you, i have answered your questions many times before.

I was just interesed in your opinion on the IPCC who you have pretty much confessed to be in love with on here, whether you feel let down by them and how now you blindly accept everything they say as fact?

wow Hainey deep as ever....just some more of your deeply insightful, highly intellectual, unreferenced view coupled with your inability to answer simple questions.

I find wild speculation from both sides unhelpful. We can expect a higher energy atmosphere, gradual warming and the snow line rising. However, a snow line at over 8000m within a few decades would require temperatures higher than anybody is predicting and then the time to melt the existing ice. It doesn't require more than a few seconds thought to debunk the prediction, and yet it made it to press and nobody shot it down.

So how do you use this information hainey? Treat this a evidence stuff from both sides should be treated with caution, or as absolute proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and there will be no climatic change beyond natural cycles.

wow Hainey deep as ever....just some more of your deeply insightful, highly intellectual, unreferenced view coupled with your inability to answer simple questions.

Sorry, was that a yes you are still in love with them or no?

So how do you use this information hainey? Treat this a evidence stuff from both sides should be treated with caution, or as absolute proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and there will be no climatic change beyond natural cycles.

The first.

still in love with them? WTF are you on about? I suggested that they know more than you about this subject ...nothing you have posted so far has convinced me otherwise...what was your science qualification again?
Here let me quote myself to you in bold does it help you understand?
[b]

Clearly it is "better" for your point of view than mine but it is not enough to discredit the entire report.

Junkyard, I have answered these questions for you before, however i will answer again as long as you answer mine....

In answer to your question

Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept
1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle

Yes, I believe that the primary influence for climate change is due to natural factors that have existed prior to man and in fact what we are experiencing at the moment is in keeping with that.

Now if you would like to answer the following:

What was the course of the historical large rise in CO2 seen periodically every 100,000 years?

Why did this CO2 level always decrease back down to original levels?

Why do the CO2 increases actually lag behind temperature rises historically?

Why do you think that UEA and IPCC are exagerating / manipulating climate change claims?

hainey posts number 666 😉

LOL - I know! I saw that 👿

Pleased someone still has a sense of humour on here 🙂

I believe that the primary influence for climate change is due to natural factors that have existed prior to man and in fact what we are experiencing at the moment is in keeping with that

The burning of fossil fuels and the 450,000 year high are in keeping with the cycle? So we have NEVER seen man made C02 emissions before in any part of the cycle or current levels in any part of the cycle before but these unnatural occurrences are still in keeping with it? You actually think that makes sense don’t you? Please say yes or no to that question

I am going home I will reply to your questions later.

"Copenhagen was a fine illustration of the arrogance of man, to think we can change nature's ways. We must be good stewards, but it is arrogant and naive the say that man overpowers nature.

Earth has seen climate change for eons and will continue to see changes. It is our duty to responsibly develop resources for humankind, and not pollute or destroy."

Sarah Palin.

Maybe she's not as daft as she looks.

I am going home I will reply to your questions later.

I look forward to it!

"Sarah Palin.

Maybe she's not as daft as she looks."

No one could look as daft as she is! and never quote anything writen in her name as her own work.

Have to agree with Crankboy on that one!!

What was the course of the historical large rise in CO2 seen periodically every 100,000 years?

Why did this CO2 level always decrease back down to original levels?

Why do the CO2 increases actually lag behind temperature rises historically?

Why do you think that UEA and IPCC are exaggerating[sic] / manipulating climate change claims?

Can you answer this with a yes or no?
The burning of fossil fuels and the 450,000 year high are in keeping with the cycle? So we have NEVER seen man made C02 emissions before in any part of the cycle or current levels in any part of the cycle before but these unnatural occurrences are still in keeping with it?
Does this accurately reflect your view? Yes or no?

Well as long as it was not man made it has no relevance to this debate

That is where you are COMPLETLY wrong and where this debate will end as we will go round in circles forever.

Junkyard:

Note though - the correlation only applies if the NASA GISS global anomaly data is correct - if you apply an alternative temperature record to it, such as UAH satellite data or or even the southern hemisphere mean sea surface temperature then the correlation begins to fail - I've already noted the difference and potential bias within the GISS data.

What would be really interesting would be to plot the hawaii temperature records *only* against the mauna lea CO2 data and see how the correlation works...

PS: I wonder if its wise to set your global reference for CO2 levels in a series of islands famed for their volcanic activity?

Z11, that makes life easier. Your comments about Mauna Loa and Hawaii temperature records are a good indication of where you're coming from!

Hainey, I think you're right that this one is going to go round and round.

hainey, do you have any understanding of potential mechanisms for these cycles which you could then apply to the current situation and explain therfore why it is relevant/likely to happen again?

That is where you are COMPLETLY wrong and

wonder if its wise to set your global reference for CO2 levels in a series of islands famed for their volcanic activity

Junkyard, you will not answer my questions directly so i am going to have to make assumptions from the garbage you are typing. Correct me if i am wrong but you believe:

1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate
2. CO2 rises lagging temperature rises has no relevance to this debate
3. You are in love with the IPCC

Yes or No answers please. No spurious garbage trying to hide your complete lack of ability to do anything but quote the IPCC. 😉

1. Historical natural CO2 cycles have no relevance to this debate

Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?

Which come first the chicken or the egg hainey? Or did they evolve together? you're limiting your time horizon to only a few hundred thousand years in which atmospheric carbon levels have been very low even in interglacials.

The low levels have led to conditions highly favourable to man and our species has flourished to the point where it is threatened by its own over proliferation (the definition of pollution is soiling the nest to the point the species living in the nest suffers).

I disagree with 1/ because we know what happened when CO2 levels went very high in geological time - climate change that led to mass extinctions such as in the Permian.

I agree with 2/. Low CO2 is only one of many factors that combine to give conditions favourable to the accumulation of ice at the start of a glaciation and even if it appears to lag slightly it is not totally out of step. High CO2 at the end of the cycle simply buffers the climatic change that takes place due to astological factors IMO. Without the high end of cycle CO2 the conditions as the earth plunges into a cold period would be even more severe.

3/ I'm in love with my wife

Junkyard, you will not answer my questions directly

am going to have to make assumptions from the garbage you are typing

No spurious garbage trying to hide your complete lack of ability to do anything but quote the IPCC.

Hainey this is getting too much like the playground for me. If you want to have a debate and both ask and answer questions then we could continue if you just want to ask questions without answering anything whilst having petty snipes [ I am also guilty of this can we both just stop?] then really what is the point?.

Myself, a-a and Edukator have all asked you a series of questions if you wish to reply.

So I will asssume by the fact that you STILL won't answer my questions that you don't know the answers?

They were 3 simple questions really!? - Just following your example.

As you are unwilling to engage me, i will explain what i am trying to get at.

I think you are being too blinkered with your thought processes, and really ignoring a lot of other contributory factors.

I feel like if I held a microphone to your brain it would sound like this:

Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2, Man made CO2

Yes CO2 is high at the moment and yes it is a greenhouse gas, but, if it is that much higher than has been seen before, why have temperatures not followed suit?

You seem unwilling to consider past rises and falls in CO2 levels yet they if you look at the pattern we should be at a peak right now?

You are quick to devalue ANY other scientist who disagrees with the IPCCs opinion yet when facts are presented regarding UEA and IPCC exageration and a tailoring of data its ok - people make mistakes.

I just find you, well, very one dimensional.

I know we will never agree, i don't expect us too, but, i would ask of you, like a scientist should, read all the data presented and look at the bigger picture.

Don't lie awake at night thinking of me, its creepy.

hainey, whats your favourite colour?

Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?

I am not saying that i am categorically right, i would never be that arrogant 😉 , I agree with you, i don't know, they might do, and like a certain split in the scientific community i am leaning that way. What I am trying to say is that they are not insignificant and can not be dismissed as such. At the moment the earth is no worse off than it ever has been, and all we have going forward is computer simulations.

Oh, ermmm, White.

I'll have a go at the answer Hainey.

1. Other factors have driven temperature change in the past (lots mentioned in this thread) and continue to be involved.

2. CO2 concentrations have generally followed temperature as a positive feedback (e.g. CO2 being less soluble in warmer water).

3. Man turns up as an additional factor and CO2 concentrations increase due to our emissions causing an imbalance in the generally stable natural sources and sinks.

4. The additional effect of our emissions drive a temperature change, in addition to natural factors at work, which this time lags CO2 emissions by an order of decades due to the thermal intertia of the system.

5. Men with beards and sandals try to assess the relative contribution of all of the factors (natural, human and feedbacks) to work which makes the most significant contribtion and to predict where the new 'steady-state' temperature of the system is going to end be.

6. People on mtb thread argue about the above.

How's that?

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree with the 1st bit, 2nd bit to be determined
4. To be determined
5. Agree
6. Agree

Well they might do, I dont know. In order to decide this I would like some idea of why scientists think they happend and then we can see if those factors might be applicable to the current situation. You seem to think they do apply, why is this?

I am not saying that i am categorically right, i would never be that arrogant , I agree with you, i don't know, they might do, and like a certain split in the scientific community i am leaning that way. What I am trying to say is that they are not insignificant and can not be dismissed as such. At the moment the earth is no worse off than it ever has been, and all we have going forward is computer simulations.

Oh, ermmm, White.

well you managed to answer one of the questions!!!

Why do you think the cycles are relevant, which scientists have provided you with evidence to make you think this or is it just your hope?

I thought I'd have a look at this graph again

[img] [/img]

And thought it would be interesting to see how this close comparison worked in the grand scale: GIS Temperature (red line) plotted against Mauna Loa CO2 levels (green line) from 1958

[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/gistemp/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2 [/img]

Crikey, just look at the correlation, look at that matching upward curve - categoric proof!

😯 ???

Sorry if I am repeating anything - haven't read the past 18 pages (seems to be quite emotive!)

The term GLOBAL WARMING is misleading. Yet the average temperature is getting hotter, but for the average human being with our short concentration span all we will see is CLIMATE CHANGE. The fact that the see is on average 1 degree hotter is not something we will notice. The fact that we get more regular thunder storms, tropical summers and extreme cold at winter is something we notice. These are linked and the more the earth's average temp increases the more unstable our weather will become.

I haven't analysed all the data or spoken to all the scientists. However, over the past 12 months the 17 nations with the biggest GDP output (between them represent >90% of global CO2 emissions) have all agreed to put measures to reduce CO2 emissions into their domestic laws. These are the very countries that have spent the most studying the science. If they think there is a problem I don't see any point in me doing my own research. I also think there is a problem.
🙂

I'll be a climate expert after reading all these graphs and charts etc! 😆

so we have lies, damn lies, statistics and now Z-11 statistics.
You posted a graph, using the data you don’t agree with, to criticise a correlation WTF are you doing that for? Honestly do you even know? Correlations are maths not graphs with altered scales to “prove” your point of view. Where is the temperature scale? Why does the temperature no longer increase? Why is it a straight line without much variability? What intervals have you used for it on your non displayed temperature scale? Why have you altered the carbon ppm scale? If you want to criticise a correlation I would actually do the maths with the data and actually DO a correlation, work out what % of warming it accounts for and work out what the likelihood of this occurring by chance was– I would not just post up an ill defined un scaled graph to counter this. Very poor indeed.
I also note you don’t want to continue criticising the C02 measure do you? It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science.

Hainey so you accept that C02 is increasing due to man but you think it is debatable as to whether this will have an effect on temperature or climate? 😯 You really think we could increase the ppm of a greenhouse gas and it would not have any effect – I cannot believe you think that is credible , at face value alone it is laughable. So when we we add something to the system A FORCE it is debatable as to whether it will have an effect. For your account to be correct then eithe rcause and effect is incorrect, C02 is not a greenhouse gas or something is negating it's effect [as the ppm increase shows the C02 is not being absorbed by the carbon cycle]. So have you a either no cause and effect oC02 is not a greenhouse gas or a great cooling mechanism to suggest that everyone has missed? Whish are you using as an explantion of ehy iot ios debatable?

Perhaps you and z-11 can e-mail off forum publish your therories and make the scientific community look mighty foolish

It's snowing again.

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree with the 1st bit, 2nd bit to be determined
4. To be determined
5. Agree
6. Agree

OK Hainey lets bypass our sticking point. You say point 4 is to be determined, and I agree.

The difference between us is though, that I think there is at least a 99.9% chance of things turning out badly and you think that the chances are much lower. I don't know what level of threat you would attribute to climate change really happening as a result of our actions, but obviously it's not such a high chance that you are worried about it. (Just as a matter of interest, what would you say were the chances of the IPCC etc being right? 50% ? or less?)

Maybe if we look at our relative levels of confidence in the science we can move away from some of the rather polarised (no pun intended) discussions we've been having and talk about some other related issues.

You posted a graph, using the data you don’t agree with, to criticise a correlation WTF are you doing that for? Honestly do you even know?

Actually, I was doing it to review the reliability of the correlation between the data given in the graph you linked from skeptical science

Correlations are maths not graphs with altered scales to “prove” your point of view.

agreed, so why did you post one to "prove" your point of view, where you said "I prefer to look at what is happening NOW as man made C02 levels increase"

Where is the temperature scale? Why does the temperature no longer increase?

The temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!

Why is it a straight line without much variability?

Because the temperature variability is actually minute

What intervals have you used for it on your non displayed temperature scale?

straight data, from the horses mouth, no averaging

Why have you altered the carbon ppm scale?

I haven't - if anything your own graph has pushed the scale of the temperature rises to "match" the CO2 data

If you want to criticise a correlation I would actually do the maths with the data and actually DO a correlation, work out what % of warming it accounts for and work out what the likelihood of this occurring by chance was– I would not just post up an ill defined un scaled graph to counter this.

Well, that looks like a pretty significant percentage rise in CO2 compared with a VERY small percentage rise in temperature - its all plotted on the same scale - are you questioning the data I'm putting forward, its from an impeccable source!

Very poor indeed.
I also note you don’t want to continue criticising the C02 measure do you? It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science.

Criticise the CO2 measure? all I said was that I thought its very strange to take your [b]global[/b] measurement of CO2 at one location (in a volcanically active area) when your temperature measurement was taken in thousands of different data points across the world and averaged across them to give a global average anomaly, you'd expect by the same measure that all the different CO2 station data would be averaged to give a mean global CO2 rise

I cannot really see that you've [b]debunked[/b] anything I've said - in fact all you actually seem to have said is that one set of data being proven unreliable does not undermine the "overall theory" - I do wonder just how many sets of data being manipulated to the point of absurdness it would take for you to question something with a level of scientific rigour. Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in [b]data[/b] analysis, not in theoretical computer models.

Are you telling me that you think its unnecessary to apply a proper quality assurance audit to environmental data before its used?

When you say you've [b]debunked[/b] things, can you show me where you've debunked my contention that there is a warm bias in the surface record that does not reflect in the atmospheric record (if the CO2 greenhousing theory is correct, you'd expect the anomaly to be the same!)

You're welcome to play with the data sets yourself and compare it to whatever you like - no bias here:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/plot/uah/plot/rss

you'd expect by the same measure that all the different CO2 station data would be averaged to give a mean global CO2 rise

The temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!

Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis

I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis, not in theoretical computer models

Hainey so you accept that C02 is increasing due to man but you think it is debatable as to whether this will have an effect on temperature or climate?

Show me the evidence that this will have an impact beyond that of the cyclic CO2 and temperature cycles we have seen before. Show me the figures and graphs predicting that this CO2 will keep on rising and temperature will keep on rising. You must have this data around you to share with us?

SO you have ”proved” that as ppm increase by 1 then Degree c do not increase by 1 ... Who is claiming that for every increase of 1 ppm of C02 we get a 1 degree increase in temperature? Words fail me - I hope you realise what you have done

Can you show me a curve of temperature that closely matches the CO2 curve at any expression of correlation? if the two [b]are[/b] linked then sooner or later you need some correlation - you can get close with a factoring of 100 (ie, 100 ppm increase in CO2 makes an increase of 1 deg C, but its still not a perfect match, there has to be some form of link if the theory is correct.

Unlike you, I believe that the key to science lies in data analysis

Despite my direct challenge on what you should do you with the data you give me plenty of words and no actual correlation or maths. Go and do some data analysis then. Dont speak do an actual correlation.

Just what I tried - and I cannot get one!

I agree with you it would be better to have actual data but as we are predicting the future, via extrapolation from current data [models], data is rather hard to gather.

No its not, there's shit loads of it out there - the problem is that the unadjusted raw data doesn't seem to support the theory - it only works once you "value add" the data

Extrapolation from know data is hardly a radical approach in science now is it ?

Modifying your data before extrapolating is a pretty new area though

I mean I predict winter will end and spring will follow - apparently I have no data for this and it is just a theoretical model can you let me know what happens about April time ?.

Careful now, because that suggests that it could all just be part of a natural cycle over which we have no influence... oops, you didnt meant to suggest that did you 😆

The temperature scale is there - thats how small the actual increase is - plotted on exactly the same scale as the rise in CO2!

Have to agree with Junkyard that this is a particularly silly comment.

How can temperature and CO2 concentrations be measured on the same scale?

Because according to you RPRT, they are supposed to be connected to each other - ie, a 10% rise in CO2 must correlate to a predictable, verifiable (not necessarily matching) %age rise in temperature

OMG.. I made the huge mistake of popping in to see how things were going here only to read Z11's utter inability to grasp basic maths! A fact compounded by his total ignorance to his own ignorance! Now it's gone beyond debating issues relating to GW and has become a demonstration of ignorance of how to interpret lines on a graph! Good grief! I taught this stuff to 12 year olds for a living. At the time I used to look around for examples of how it's possible to make really basic errors in drawing up and interpreting graphs and charts as a lesson in using scale and interval correctly.. If I was still teaching, Z11 would be up on my whiteboard tomorrow with a bunch of 12 year olds mostly pointing and going, 'duh!'

🙂

It is actually worse than that Mark as he thinks this graph is a correlation rather than a plot of different information on the same scale over time. Z-11 you HAVE NOT DONE a correlation [b]again this is not a correlation[/b]. How many times do I need to say this could you just Google a correlation please – we have formula to do this not just a visual look at a graph with different data on it. Stop telling me you believe in data analysis and actually do some then – so far to my challenge to do some actual data analysis you have given me lots of words and not one number not one piece of analysis – whilst stating that unlike me you believe in data analysis... PRICELESS Thanks

Hainey – I admire your perseverance
I can demonstrate that C02 is a greenhouse gas, that man is releasing vast quantities of it, that the parts per million are beyond your scale, that man made Co2 was not a factor during your cyclical explanation, that Man made C02 is a factor today, that C02 has a forcing effect, Give you a value for this, show that more energy is entering the world than in the past [ it will warm up] – how you think that all of this does not break your cycle as an explanation is lost on me. [b]What exactly would it take to for you to accept the cycle is not a valid anymore?[/b]
You also have the problem of and I repeat [but with better sentence structure!]that
[b]For your account to be correct then either cause and effect is incorrect, C02 is not a greenhouse gas or something is negating it's effect [as the ppm increase shows the C02 is not being absorbed by the carbon cycle]. So you either have to explain cause and NO effect or why C02 is not a greenhouse gas or a great cooling mechanism to suggest that everyone has missed? Which are you using as an explanation of why it is debatable? You really do need to propose a mechanism that ameliorates the increase in C02 to try and give your account some credibility.
[/b]
Some more data for you.
As the current rate of increase of C02 is 2 ppm per year this means [ and I have quoted not from the IPCC just for you! ]that

At a current CO2 rise rates of ~2.2 ppm/year, CO2 levels by mid-century would reach 470-480 ppm

Z11 - In the past you've been one of the first to be picky about loose wording and apparently all important tiny discrepancies in different models.

Do you really think temperature and CO2 concentration can be plotted on the [i]"same scale"[/i] ? What does that mean exactly?

Did you get confused at the bit in Spinal Tap when they turned the amp up to 11?

Mark, the data's all there, its plotted against each other - shite, I've even linked to the data if you want to express it in a different manner!

Come on mark - the data's all out there! -are you saying that my graph does [b]not[/b] show GIS Temperature plotted against Mauna Loa CO2 levels ?

The fact is, that as I said - the data doesn't correlate - if one of you wants to go and show me a correlating rise go ahead, without manipulating the data its impossible to produce a rise in temperature that proportionally matches the rise in CO2, prove me wrong, go on!

Junkyard - come on,

When you say you've debunked things, can you show me where you've debunked my contention that there is a warm bias in the surface record that does not reflect in the atmospheric record

Just as a matter of interest who EVER in any climate change discussion or paper claimed that temperature would rise "proportionately" in line with CO2 concentrations?

(edit: or even "proportionally")

So RPRT - are the two connected or not?

if its not a proportionate rise, and there's no other correlation - then on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise

The world is massive with oceans n'stuff and I think you'd expect the temperature to take some time to catch up with the factors forcing a rise. Even heating water in a kettle (or Trangia) takes some time following the application of extra energy so I wouldn't necessarily expect temperature and rise in CO2 to follow each other instantaneously. Would you reasonably expect it to correlate exactly on a graph of annual CO2 concentration and temperature?

+ there are various feedback systems to account for + various other forcing factors not accounted for by CO2, but outside of previous natural cycles (such as cutting down loads of trees, rearing loads of cows, flying planes etc.)

But in answer to your question, which I can hardly believe you bothered to ask, yes they are connected.

And in answer to your other question, which again I can hardly believe you have bothered to ask as it has been asked and answered repeatedly

on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise?

On the basis that lots of eminent scientists tell me so.

Ah, its a magical rise that we cannot show any finite predictability to then?

+ there are various feedback systems to account for + various other forcing factors not accounted for by CO2, but outside of previous natural cycles (such as cutting down loads of trees, rearing loads of cows, flying planes etc.)

And you therefore suggest that climate models predicting future climate change are reliable on what basis?

Mark - I'll just remind you that the graph I posted expresses exactly the same data as the one above it originally posted by junkyard - GISS versus Mauna Loa - the only difference is that it expresses it less sympathetically, by not artificially forcing the scale of the GISS data to suit a purpose

And you therefore suggest that climate models predicting future climate change are reliable on what basis?

See my previous answer about eminent scientists.

how do I do big letters ?
[b][u]You have done a graph that plots two things on the same scale over time this is NOT a correlation [/b][/u]please google a correlation and stop repeating that you have done a correlation. You have done a GRAPH and a pi55 poor one at that. One that proves as ppm increase by one temperature does not NO sh!T sherlock.If anyone was claiming this it would be great but as no one is what is the point of your graph? Is it to demonstrate your inability to do data analysis?.
here I googled for you

A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence ]wiki - bit more detailed[/url]

Where did I claim I had debunked anything - it is not a word I would use rather unscientific.

on what basis do you suggest CO2 the primary driver of the temperature rise

FFS so now C02 is not a greenhouse gas is that your claim? What next on what basis do I think that when I apply heat/energy to something will it increase in temperature? Do I really have to argue this with you really do I? Is that the extent of your objection?

What climate models do, like any other models used in science, is to consider all of these factors to the best of our ability, using things like chemistry, physics and mathematics.

If you have a better option for assessing the future effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations that's fab. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it?

Junkyard - I plotted a graph, I dont claim that I've produced a correlation, I claimed that [i]after looking at the data[/i] there [b]is[/b] no correlation

If I've got it so wrong, then simply show me the the correlating rise between CO2 and temperature!

According to the data, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 10% in the last thirty years - the temperature rise is minute by comparison!

however, I did say "Crikey, just look at the correlation, look at that matching upward curve - categoric proof" which was clearly taking the piss - remember it was you who posted the graph of GISS versus Mauna Loa to show us how accurately the rise in CO2 reflected the rise in Temperature - my graph was another look at the same figures!

Where did I claim I had debunked anything - it is not a word I would use rather unscientific.

"It is getting tiring debunking your ever increasing levels of fringe science." - by you, on this page!

Junkyard

You are avoiding the question, [b]AGAIN![/b]

Can you please, simply show me the figures and graphs predicting how CO2 will keep on rising and temperature will keep on rising. You must have this data around you to share with us?

What is your prediction for 10, 20, 50 100 years time.

What will CO2 levels be, what will temperatures be. Why? How will the temperature be linked to the CO2? What percentage temperature rise will you expect in comparison to CO2 rise?

And stick to the question.

Edit: Also can you add your theory on what is going to happen with Water Vapour over these time periods too.

What climate models do, like any other models used in science, is to consider all of these factors to the best of our ability