Saturday, 1 November 2014
The smoking gun for global warming
Imagine there was no significant change in CO2 associated with current temperatures. If you remove that element and rely on the standard historic temperature graph you will see that where we are now is clearly part of a long term regular cycle, and there is nothing different between today's peak and any other's. The scientific 'consensus' minus the added CO2 ought to have been this is a standard cycle and we are in the period between ice ages where the temperature rises before falling again as it always has and presumably always will.
The CO2 of course always rises after the temperature, in two cycles, the long (up to 1000 years) and short (1-2 years), combined means that every other warm period has had increased CO2 which arrived just after the rise in temperature. There is no question about this, or doubts, scientists are fully aware of it, but because man has been burning fossil fuels the latest rise has been attributed almost totally to that (despite our current temperature peak being lower than the past and corresponding with all others previously) but this simple graph proves beyond reasonable doubt that a) today's temperatures are totally normal within the long cycle and b) if CO2 always rises after temperature then why isn't that the case for the CO2 levels of today?
But the simple question is knowing this is genuine, then why hasn't anyone considered that today's temperature is normal for the point in the cycle, and if the CO2 hadn't been so high then could anyone have thought otherwise, even if it's natural from the rise itself?