Is the fact that CO2 never historically drove temperatures evidence that it can't do it today?

I doubt that CO2 has changed behavior it is the same condition it was in the 1700s to 2011 . Its been recycled many times .

No, it's not evidence that it can't do it today. Unfortunately when given the opportunity to explain the relationship between CO2 and temperature the alarmist had Al Gore get on stage and ignore the historical relationship between temperature and CO2. It's definitely complicated but not as simple as alarmist make it out to be.

Then: sun makes planet warmer, Temp goes up, CO2 increases, CO2 takes over, sun makes planet cooler, CO2 looses the force or turns to the darkside and decreases. But I love your guns analogy because it's so simply stupid. It's right up there with CO2 is like a poison, even in small doses it can kill.

No. It's not evidence in the slightest. People that use that as an argument do not understand why the oceans outgas CO2 during a warming period, why they aren't doing it today, and so URL1 many times as you tell them that the atmosphere is rising by 15gt/y while human emissions are over half that amount, that both the atmosphere and sea surface is gaining in CO2 concentration at the same time.

And as many times as you explain to them that measurements of longwave radiation at the 15 micron band are showing the majority of the change they just can't put 2 and 2 together. For one of those types of scenerios all you need do is look at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when natural releases of greenhouse gases drove the temperature skyward. But no, it does not make sense as those emissions of the past were consequences of natural output and natural factors.

They are basically attributing the burning of fossil fuels by humans to natural factors. It's a stupid argument. Maxx: Why in the world would you post a graph of the Sun's Blackbody curve when discussing the greenhouse effect as opposed to the Earth's black-body curve?

Please, learn about the greenhouse effect because the image you posted hardly even deals with it. wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/geosys/fig2… And more for you to look at www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files… weblogs.nos.nl/weer/files/2009/11… Phoenix quill - In the long term there are other factors that have to be factored in, such as changes in orbital forcing, that can and have mitigated the effect a rising amount of CO2 has in the atmosphere providing cooling and allowing the oceans to absorb much of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere. There is a certain threshold where CO2 forcing eventually passes orbital forcing and then a runaway greenhouse effect will occur.

This has been coined 'the point of no return'. Until that time orbital forcing is greater than CO2 forcing and as solar input continues to decline due to the planet changing to a more elliptical orbit, if the level of CO2 increase due to unnatural sources becomes non-existent, it will eventually correct itself. How long that will take and what the effects of the temperature rise and decrease will be is up for debate but as scientists become more aware of what causes certain natural events to occur at a more frequent or reduced rate the better our understanding of the possible effects are becoming.

It is indeed not necessary that non-natural analogues be produced for every anthropogenic influence on climate, just because dipstick copy-cat deniers find that tasty as their lie of the week. Nor is it really necessary to respond at all to these juvenile delinquent science flunkers, except by banning their incurably dishonest backsides. And voting against the moron politicians like Rick Perry who are mainly supported by, and who serve, such halfwits.

But, of course, natural CO2 DOES DRIVE temperatures. If it didn't, Earth would be much more like Mars. Maax here is so harebrained, he cannot remember that he was shown the graph he asks for already.

The less dimwitted anti-science liars infesting this site usually wait a little while longer before recycling their shell-game crocs. Edit to Maax: The solar activity linked to in your answer is interesting. Where did it come from, I wonder, and why is different that the one shown here: skepticalscience.com/solar-ac…?

Yeah yeah, and two hundred farmers in ancient Mesopotamia caused the last ice age to end because of their camp fires and animal f-a-rts, please dream up new fairy stories to frighten the less sophisticated amongst us.

Down boy. Global warming is not about what we KNOW, it's about what we think is likely. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature change from a sustained doubling of CO2 is: "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C.

Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values" Wow. Way to lock it down there boys. It almost sounds like a Monty Python skit about certainty.So if you're through throwing stones from the porch of your glass house, I can tell you exactly what the 'denier' logic is - with the proviso that it's not proof, just likelihood.

Even skeptics like Lord Monckton think CO2 drives warming, just not enough to matter. We know the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere went up by 0.0031% from 1978 to 1998, the question is: "Did that 31ppm cause the 0.5 C of warming." cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warmin… If it DID then it's quite fair to say that CO2 doubling DOES have that 1.5°C driving effect the IPCC calls a minimum.

And that alone would justify major efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. BUT is this correlation LIKELY? There are 3 things that imply it is not.

The first is that the steep 20 year temperature rise of 1978 was followed by a period of 'no statistical warming'. The Phil Jones chart went fairly flat. The 38 years proceeding this period were BELOW the 1940 maxima.

And a similar temperature rise rate from 1910 to 1940 took place WITHOUT as similar increase of CO2. This does not PROVE there's no meaningful driving, it just makes it unlikely. Now the second problem is the Medieval Warm Period & the Little Ice Age.

These were +/- 1 to 2 degree changes PRIOR to man's CO2 debut. Again, doesn't prove CO2 can't drive temperature, just that 'recent' changes on the scale we see today are possible without CO2 driving them. Which brings us to the 3 issue of 'Positive Feedback'.

You see Positive feedback tends to make systems lockup or 'runaway'. As in 'the runaway greenhouse effect'. Negative feedback, makes them oscillate.

Now if CO2 drives temperature AND temperature drives CO2, THAT is positive feedback, and the greater the sensitivity of Temperature to CO2, the more positive feedback there is. So what's the problem with CO2 lagging Temperature? The problem is that it takes a LOT of positive feedback to account for it, and high positive feedback makes systems lock instead of oscillate.

Earth's temperature has been oscillating. Lets break this down. If a large CO2 release from volcanic action LED a temperature rise - then it's LIKELY CO2 drives temperature.

But if CO2 LAGS Temperature it only strong inference is that Temperature drives CO2 - which JFTR virtually everyone believes. When the oceans get warm, they release CO2. Now does THAT CO2 create positive feedback that drives even more warming that releases even more CO2 that drives even MORE warming and so on and so on.

Couple with the positive feedback of Ice. The less Ice, the warmer it gets, the less ice, the warmer it gets and so on. Plants begin to die, CO2 increases.

Volcanic CO2 release continues, CO2 increases. Now put all this together and why would it EVER get colder? The system goes runaway & you get Venus.

The more positive feedback the deeper some other oscillatory driver must be to make the system snap back. When it does snap, the system tries to lock the other way. The more Ice, the less heat, the more Ice.

The less heat, the less CO2, the less heat. The Earth becomes a snowball & never recovers.So the LESS temperature depends on CO2 the more LIKELY orbitally induced irradiance oscillations can drive observed climatetary ones. Does this mean our current 0.01% increase of CO2 CAN'T be driving temperature?

Absolutely not.It just means it isn't LIKELY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8G… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sen….

Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.

The fact that temperatures have driven CO2 concentration in the past is absolutely not evidence that CO2 can not drive temperatures today. That claim is a non sequiter. And water vapor concentration is dependent on temperature.

If it were not for CO2 in the atmosphere, the water would be frozen solid. If water vapor were a strong enough greenhouse gas to keep itself in the atmosphere, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect. Moe Yes, Al Gore made a mistake.NO SOUP FOR HIM!

Usually, when "skeptics" mention the time lag between temperature and CO2 is ice core samples, they neglect to mention that they are correcting said error by Al Gore and make it sound like they are denying that CO2 absorbs infrared.

Yep, that is darn good evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature, the fact that it never has before. And did you look at the graphs? Those graphs ARE from TODAY.

They are current as to 2008. No link between CO2 and warmer temperatures (graphs) icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/… And if you think CO2 drives temperature, where is your graph showing that? ------------------------ Dook - No Sir.

I remember perfectly well what chart you showed me, it was this one: Zfacts CO2 and Temperature Graph zfacts.com/p/226.html In fact, I gave you Best Answer for that graph, because it was a nice try. But of course what’s missing from the zFacts graph that you posted is solar activity, and as soon as you see that solar activity is a near perfect match with temperature, as displayed on my graphs (linked below), then it becomes clear that its NOT CO2 driving temperature --- but the Sun. Harvard University / NOAA / NASA graph, CO2, Temp & Solar Activity http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2… So the bottom line fact is, that you don’t have a graph showing CO2 driving temperature -- because it simply doesn’t -- as a plain reading of all the relevant data clearly shows.

------------------------ Prof. Roy - Isn't that picture you're using of Prof. WhatsName on Gilligan's Island? Anyway --- the thing is Professor, that the properties of compounds only allow certain things to happen. CO2 doesn't even have the heat absorption ability of water vapor on a molecule to molecule basis.

Don't believe me? Look at this chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_… And I showed you the chart up to 2008 clearly showing that CO2 was not driving anything, but in fact is being driven by temperature.

Are you thinking that CO2 has changed its properties since 2008?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.