1) the correlation disappears when you go back millions, 2) it is known that organic decomposition speeds up when temperatures increase, raising CO2. So, the data is not to be ignored, but isn't without caveats
1) the correlation disappears when you go back millions, 2) it is known that organic decomposition speeds up when temperatures increase, raising CO2. So, the data is not to be ignored, but isn't without caveats
Yeah but going back millions of years, you've got other factors like the output of the sun changing as it ages (it was 70% less bright when the earth formed) and I doubt it's as easy to get reliable data.
The organic decomposition argument doesn't make much sense because most ecosystems will be in a stable state where decaying matter is matched by new growth... when your data points are separated by decades, it doesn't matter if it takes a week or a month for a fallen tree branch to decompose, the total net output of carbon dioxide would be the same.
Ultimately it's basic physics that if you have more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere absorbing and reradiating infrared, you're going to get less heat escaping back into space. We've added 50% more CO2 so that has to create a warming effect.
It is very true that previous climates may have had differences in the sun. Re decomposition: A lot of the organic matter in forests and rainforests is there for hundreds of years because much is trapped under surface soil-notice layers of dirt piling up over generations--hotter areas have less dirt buildup. Of course CO2, specifically in the high atmosphere traps infrared reflection. The question is the magnitude of the trapping. The previous models needed a water vapor multiplier to make the numbers work--water vapor traps a lot more infrared, and there was a hypothesized interaction between CO2 and water vapor. So, it is more complicated than a simple calculation. Again, it is probably real, but it is freakishly complicated compared to HIV causing AIDS.
1) the correlation disappears when you go back millions, 2) it is known that organic decomposition speeds up when temperatures increase, raising CO2. So, the data is not to be ignored, but isn't without caveats
Yeah but going back millions of years, you've got other factors like the output of the sun changing as it ages (it was 70% less bright when the earth formed) and I doubt it's as easy to get reliable data.
The organic decomposition argument doesn't make much sense because most ecosystems will be in a stable state where decaying matter is matched by new growth... when your data points are separated by decades, it doesn't matter if it takes a week or a month for a fallen tree branch to decompose, the total net output of carbon dioxide would be the same.
Ultimately it's basic physics that if you have more carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere absorbing and reradiating infrared, you're going to get less heat escaping back into space. We've added 50% more CO2 so that has to create a warming effect.
It is very true that previous climates may have had differences in the sun. Re decomposition: A lot of the organic matter in forests and rainforests is there for hundreds of years because much is trapped under surface soil-notice layers of dirt piling up over generations--hotter areas have less dirt buildup. Of course CO2, specifically in the high atmosphere traps infrared reflection. The question is the magnitude of the trapping. The previous models needed a water vapor multiplier to make the numbers work--water vapor traps a lot more infrared, and there was a hypothesized interaction between CO2 and water vapor. So, it is more complicated than a simple calculation. Again, it is probably real, but it is freakishly complicated compared to HIV causing AIDS.