TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
So, Gbaji.
If humans weren't burning petroleum, wood, and anything else in the world that can be burned, do you think CO2 levels would still be the same naturally? Without these human actions, what would make up that source of CO2? Would some other mammal pick up the slack and start producing CO2 while simultaneously destroying things that remove CO2 from the environment?
Irrelevant. The question is whether or not that is in turn
causing an increase in temperature. The argument being used is that since there has been a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels for the hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data we have, that this correlation must continue when the source of CO2 increase is human rather than "nature".
That is a flawed assumption though and the data does not bear it out. If that same correlation existed, we'd see much much higher temperatures today than we're seeing.
Remember. The entire argument for reducing our industry so as to reduce CO2 output is not about some innate "harm" done by higher CO2 levels, but is predicated on the damage caused by increased temperatures. The entire argument rests on being able to prove that one will cause the other. While correlation is sufficient evidence of this if all other factors remain the same, those factors *aren't* the same, are they?
Quote:
You ask for proof behind a human involvement in increased CO2 levels.
No. I'm asking for proof that because CO2 levels and temperature levels have been correlative in the past prior to human activity affecting CO2, that they will continue to be so after human activity affects CO2 levels. Let me give you an analogy that may help you understand:
If you were to measure the temperature of a pot of water every day, and also measure the air temperature every day, you would likely find a correlation between them, right? On hotter days, the water will be warmer, and on cooler days, it will be colder. Pretty obvious, right? But if you then placed the pot of water on the burner of your stove, that correlation would cease. Again. Pretty obvious. Some other factor is heating up the water, but not heating up the air to the same degree.
In the past, CO2 levels and temperature both were affected by natural climate forces, just as the water and the air in my example were. Recently, human activity has resulted in increased quantities of CO2 entering the air, while at the same time deforestation has decreased the earths natural ability to convert CO2 back into Oxygen. This effect has certainly resulted in higher CO2 levels. No one's disputing that (although there is some question about the degree of the increase of course).
But just as some other factor entering the equation which only affects the water in the pot would not result in a correlated increase in air temperature, a factor which only increases the CO2 levels can't be said to result in an increase in temperature either. The fact of earlier correlation does not hold because the conditions at play on each of those things has changed.
Quote:
The fact that Humans have industry that produce more CO2 than what would be normally produced by just living seems to be proof enough. Do you want someone to get actual numbers of how much CO2 some hardcore Amish group produces vs. the CO2 produced by your average modern consumer?
Not proof of temperature change though. That's the problem. Not only can you not prove that temperature change is
caused by CO2 levels, you cannot show a similarly correlated temperature change in relation to CO2 level changes over the time period in question. It's just not there. That's part of why I initially stated that Ash's graph showed the exact opposite of what he was claiming. If the correlation argument was valid, we should see a spike in temperature of similar "size" as the one for CO2. That graph is specifically scaled such that the two measurements are of equivalent size in relation to their own periodical range. Thus, a correlation should look the same.
I'll ask again: Do you see a similar increase in temperature on that graph?
Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:48pm by gbaji