Frank LansnerJuly 9, 2014 at 5:04 AM
FRANK LANSNER PROOF 3
Richard Alley: “We can’t explain the size of warming without CO2.”
While now reviewing many sceptic arguments against CO2 as a dramatic climate driver, lets not forget how surprisingly weak arguments FOR the CO2 effect is.
And check out how easy it is debunked:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif
This picture is from a Richard Alley speech with presentations.
He shows the Vostok ice core CO2 – temperature data. He is NOT (like Al Gore) indicating that we can see CO2 drive temperatures from these graphs, he goes one step further.
He says that the large differences of temperature on Earth cannot occur without assistance from changing CO2 concentrations.
And ladies and gentlemen, this “argument” today appears to be the central and fundamental argument for CO2 as a dramatic climate driver.
So is it true?
Take a very good look at the Vostok ice data on the picture I linked to. In the upper right corner I have inserted the graphs so one can better see data. I have also inserted a green box.
The years of data enclosed in the green box actually show a rather constant CO2 level for the years where the Earth changes temperature completely from interglacial to glacial.
So, the very data behind Richard Alley happens to show exactly that temperature CAN change from one extreme to the other without help from CO2.
So the very data Richard Alley use to proof that CO2 is a “must” to explain large temperature changes shows the opposite, that nature does this without help from CO2.
Its not only the last shift from interglacial to glacial that occurs mostly without help from CO2, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
The most important “evidence” for the CO2 effect thus simply is not there.
Kind regards, Frank Lansner
Response:
Once again, you relied on Anthony Watts. And, I'll say it again - If you ever use Watts for a reference, you're going to be wrong.
Your issue is that the CO2 level and temperature plot are not 100% correlated. 95% doesn't mean anything to you, it has to be 100% or it means nothing at all. In other words, you're going to reject science because it isn't 100% to your liking. I think that shows the influence Watts has had on you and that is unfortunate. Try someone credible next time. The problem with this complaint is that you have left out a massive amount of facts. But, the record shows Watts and his buddies aren't real big on facts.
Past climate warming cycles have begun with some kind of naturally occurring trigger, typically the Milankovitch cycles, which increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. The problem is this extra energy is not enough to have melted the glaciers and cause the warming that occurred. But, it was enough to begin releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans. This extra CO2 then became the principle driver of warming by trapping extra heat, which leads to additional water vapor in the atmosphere (itself an excellent greenhouse gas). As the Milankovitch cycle continues, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth begins to decrease, leading to lower temperatures. The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.
Now, there is nothing new about any of this. In fact, scientists had predicted exactly this decades before it was actually found in the paleoclimate record. There is an excellent video that details this whole story and shows the actual scientific papers. By the way, he shows just how deceptive Anthony Watts is. The video is only about 13 minutes long. If you are at all interested in the facts, you owe it to yourself to watch it. In fact, you owe it yourself to watch the entire series.
In summary, my interpretation of your statement is that you claim CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming because the CO2 level does not exactly follow the temperature record. I have shown your premise is wrong and the reality is that this is exactly what scientists expected to find.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Richard Alley: “We can’t explain the size of warming without CO2.”
While now reviewing many sceptic arguments against CO2 as a dramatic climate driver, lets not forget how surprisingly weak arguments FOR the CO2 effect is.
And check out how easy it is debunked:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/alley3.gif
This picture is from a Richard Alley speech with presentations.
He shows the Vostok ice core CO2 – temperature data. He is NOT (like Al Gore) indicating that we can see CO2 drive temperatures from these graphs, he goes one step further.
He says that the large differences of temperature on Earth cannot occur without assistance from changing CO2 concentrations.
And ladies and gentlemen, this “argument” today appears to be the central and fundamental argument for CO2 as a dramatic climate driver.
So is it true?
Take a very good look at the Vostok ice data on the picture I linked to. In the upper right corner I have inserted the graphs so one can better see data. I have also inserted a green box.
The years of data enclosed in the green box actually show a rather constant CO2 level for the years where the Earth changes temperature completely from interglacial to glacial.
So, the very data behind Richard Alley happens to show exactly that temperature CAN change from one extreme to the other without help from CO2.
So the very data Richard Alley use to proof that CO2 is a “must” to explain large temperature changes shows the opposite, that nature does this without help from CO2.
Its not only the last shift from interglacial to glacial that occurs mostly without help from CO2, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
The most important “evidence” for the CO2 effect thus simply is not there.
Kind regards, Frank Lansner
Response:
Once again, you relied on Anthony Watts. And, I'll say it again - If you ever use Watts for a reference, you're going to be wrong.
Your issue is that the CO2 level and temperature plot are not 100% correlated. 95% doesn't mean anything to you, it has to be 100% or it means nothing at all. In other words, you're going to reject science because it isn't 100% to your liking. I think that shows the influence Watts has had on you and that is unfortunate. Try someone credible next time. The problem with this complaint is that you have left out a massive amount of facts. But, the record shows Watts and his buddies aren't real big on facts.
Past climate warming cycles have begun with some kind of naturally occurring trigger, typically the Milankovitch cycles, which increase the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth. The problem is this extra energy is not enough to have melted the glaciers and cause the warming that occurred. But, it was enough to begin releasing the CO2 trapped in the oceans. This extra CO2 then became the principle driver of warming by trapping extra heat, which leads to additional water vapor in the atmosphere (itself an excellent greenhouse gas). As the Milankovitch cycle continues, the amount of solar energy reaching Earth begins to decrease, leading to lower temperatures. The atmosphere can no longer hold the extra water vapor (hot air can hold more water vapor than cold air) and it precipitates out, taking the CO2 with it and leading to a further temperature decline.
Now, there is nothing new about any of this. In fact, scientists had predicted exactly this decades before it was actually found in the paleoclimate record. There is an excellent video that details this whole story and shows the actual scientific papers. By the way, he shows just how deceptive Anthony Watts is. The video is only about 13 minutes long. If you are at all interested in the facts, you owe it to yourself to watch it. In fact, you owe it yourself to watch the entire series.
In summary, my interpretation of your statement is that you claim CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming because the CO2 level does not exactly follow the temperature record. I have shown your premise is wrong and the reality is that this is exactly what scientists expected to find.
You did not prove man made global warming is not real.
