If that's not evidence, then what is ????

You got the before: high CO2 and high temperature, and you got the after: low CO2 and ice ages.

And in the interim period, most of the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere by a process that had nothing to do with temperature.

It can't get more obvious than that really.

It's not ... at most what's accepted is that something complicated is going on in the Antarctic, like with ocean currents.

No scientist would claim that CO2 is insignificant.

I really don't get you, Frogboy.

If you go into such details, then you enter the realm where you see temperature dependence from every possible source. Evidence shows temperatures which are a result of albedo, ocean currents, and CO2, and even things like cloudiness, desertification, aerosols, wind patterns, sunspots and even orbital oddities (Milankovitch cycles).

There is no such thing as evidence that shows ONLY the relation between CO2 and temperature.

You want the impossible.

Just take the evidence for what it is: something that is not clean, which contains noise, and it is a bit harder to understand than you would really like.

Although... actually there's this study which sort-of shows evidence like you want to see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

It considered a large set of sources so that regional effects are reduced.

But for some reason you just keep ignoring it. Perhaps you could explain to me why you ignore this?

I'm just trying to convey the message that the world is ugly and "imperfect" and nature cannot give an uncomtaminated example of a relationship that is only limited to CO2 and Temperature.

The ice cores are just as contaminated as all the rest.

What he wants, simply does not exist.

His conclusion is based on some fairy-tale assumption that the Antarctic is free of regional effects, that things like albedo and wind patterns don't play a role, and that the Antarctic data are free of any measurement errors. The worst assumption is, that you can put a CO2 graph and a Temperature graph on top of each other, and compare them 1:1 without taking into account the other possible effects. And the conclusion is pretty serious: let's not do anything because CO2 has an insignifcant effect.

This is not a flaw in the data, but it's a flaw in reasoning, that's what I'm trying to explain.

Yes, of course you could conclude that from those data.

But you cannot conclude that this means that temperature regulates CO2 in a real and physical sense, because there are also other physical processes that take place.

And therefore you cannot conclude that CO2 is insignificant in regulating temperature.

Just take this fictitious example:

Suppose there's a current that was stopped and started flowing again because of melting glaciers.

Suppose that the current transports a lot of heat towards the southpole (warming the southpole all of a sudden).

Also suppose that the current slowly but gently mixes deep oceanic waters with surface waters, releasing CO2 (creating more warming afterward).

Now... does this have ANYTHING to do with a temperature / CO2 relation?

No it doesn't.

It's a completely different physical process.

Well anyway... have a nice christmas just in case I forget tomorrow.

No I'm not a troll....... it's just hard to explain.

The whole point is that you cannot simply say that temperature precedes CO2, because that assumes there's a simple physical process that relates the two.

Such a process simply does not exist...

Oh maybe if I explain like this :

Someone can ALWAYS put 2 graphs on top of each other and claim there's a relation between the two.

But without a sound physical process, that relationship is just meaningless and something that's fictional.

Do you agree so far?

Afterthought:

When 2 graphs share the same x-axis measuring units (in this case, time), there is a relation between them.  No 'claim' is necessary.

You clearly have issues with English comprehension.

YOU CAN SAY 'temperature precedes CO2' simply because the timeline SHOWS it.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A CONNECTION between them.  it CAN BE ONLY COINCIDENTAL.

Daiwa understands this too ...comment #1658...directly AFTER yours I quoted here.

And 1661 'afterthought' is yet another way to show a RELATIONSHIP still without any discussion at all of cause/effect.

Now....

I am an AGW believer.  Daiwa is not.  And Frogboy is yet to be convinced either way.   ALL THREE of us are trying to get you to understand some basic English comprehension....something you NEED before engaging in a debate of any kind....without simply being classed as a 'troll' and removed.

Soon as Al Gore starts looking to make money elsewhere, we'll talk. Link

This might be of interest to you, Geo.

Typical liberal fascist. Don't have "correct" opinions? Then they'll try to hurt you economically. We've seen that quite a bit lately.  Thats liberal tolerance in action. 

(and I don't believe in any left wing cabal, I just think people who like more state power will fi de causes to lobby for more of it)

Sure... of course you can say that, it's no more than a description of the data.

But Frogboy then concluded that the influence of CO2 is small.

And to disprove his conclusion you've to show him a graph where a rise in CO2 precedes Temperature.

To make such a statement, he assumes a simple relationship between Temperature and CO2, which is not based on any physical process.

I drew the analogy of comparing 2 graphs at random and "proving" some kind of fictitious relationship, because that's what he's doing.

I've also tried to explain that the world is not that simple, there's no easy way to describe temperature, especially when you're trying to describe the temperature at a single point on the earth. Then you cannot average out regional effects - you've to include the regional effects into your analysis.

That's another mistake that Frogboy makes, he ignores the regional effects.

After all, if you look at the "lag", what is that really ... it's either a 200 year shift on the time-axis, or it's a 1 degree celcius shift on the temperature axis, or a combination of these.

This difference can be explained by a separate process. Or it can even fall within measurement error.

Then you don't have to go against ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that's been collected and suddenly the world makes sense again.

And that's the third mistake Frogboy makes. He ignores evidence like the Azolla event, because he claims that it's "no evidence", simply based on the notion that there is no "clear" evidence in it that CO2 precedes Temperature.

But it does show exactly that, and more. It also shows a strong link between CO2 levels and Temperature. You let the CO2 level of the atmosphere drop from 3,000 ppm to 300 ppm? Enter the ice age.

It's even more of a significant example, because the actions of the algae are a mirror image of the actions of humans. The algae buried trillions of tons of CO2. We humans are in the process of putting trillions of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

As such this event is an extremely cool and useful piece of evidence about what's in store for us.

It's such a shame people don't treat it that way.

You get my 'butt-kick' instead.

It doesn't matter who the target is....ALL members of this community can expect the freedom from personal attack.

Hard to imagine it hasn't sunk in yet but if B occurs after A, B cannot be the cause of A.  A might be the cause of B, but such a temporal relationship doesn't prove A causes B either, it's just a temporal association.  You can definitely say B does not cause A, however.

This assumes that the temporal observations (measurements) showing B consistently occurring after A are accurate/correct.

Your argument against the temporal evidence shown in Frogboy's 'flashy graph' is simply ludicrous.  Neither a logarithmic relationship nor regional variance can defy or 'reverse' time.