It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.
|
|
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.
0.
CO2 rise and temperature rise are connected. But permanent high temperatures are connected to a drop in CO2.
1.
The Climate change is in the humidity and only secondary in temperature.
2.
The reconstruction of the temperature of the past is base on isotopes of oxygen, and they are depend on both temperature and number of mornings where the water/ice had evaporated.
3.
The change of CO2 in the atmosphere have two cause: The supply and attrition of CO2.
3.1
Majority of the supply by CO2 to the atmosphere, is from the oceans, and the oceans have the CO2 from natural oil well on the ocean floor. The CO2 go from the ocean by rise of temperature and by change of currents.
3.2
Majority of the attrition of CO2 to the atmosphere is by the rain. This growing by rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. And grow by the rainfall.
|
Stand Up Take Action 2010.
