@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK Like i said, that UFO story i posted just for fun to show how silly media can be. That site is only a collection of different news media stories on what can be the consequence of AGW. ...

No - it's not "only a collection of different news media stories on what can be the consequence of AGW", it rather is "only a collection of different news media stories on what the journalists believe can be the consequence of AGW".

But you sell it in a way as if they were scientifically secured findings, which they simply aren't. So please stop trying to fool us.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

But you certainly have a complete understanding of climate and can come up with non-flawed, final models?

Great question. This is one I've asked before in these threads. If the GW models are so flawed then please demonstrate a more accurate less flawed model.


Quote:

I would say the better way is to check theory and model and - if necessary - to upgrade them in a way that they can reflect reality more precisely.

Science does this all the time. Gravity was F=MA until a more accurate model was constructed. While F=MA is used when less accuracy is okay the model of General Relativity is a clear improvement and is more accurate. However, even Relativity is flawed. It's not been rectified with the quantum. Using General Relativitiy on the minute produces and incorrect result.

Do we conclude all gravity models are flawed and therefore it's all natural? Of course not that's what science does. Science works to understand the natural.

Yet the Denialists say all the time -- climate models are flawed and it's all natural. So, just ignore it and do something else. This stops all progress of truly understanding what is occurring on the planet. I see this sort of activity as non-scientific and more akin to the 'god of the gaps' approach.

Last edited by BrianK on 17-Jun-2010 at 12:13 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @BrianK The solar storm thread has some nice examples of bad journalism like for example this: NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)/ Norwegian news has also been spreading the same lie and sadly nearly every comment believes it and alot even link it with the mayan 2012 "prediction". We know from history that solar flares expose the planet to radiation. We know that electronics are vulvernable to this EMF radiation. Historically we know that humans destroy each other to consume scarce resources. I think the important questions are when will it happen again, what will be impacted, and how do we best protect humanity. I find the Mayan comment such an absurdity I can't accept the author was serious. However, there will be people reading this which accept that statement as a truism. What the author is doing in a way is mocking those who are rational thought impared. I'm not sure that's entirely upstanding.

Yes of course. I dont deny that solar storms could and will happen in the future. What bothers me is that they make it seem like this current solar cycle will be worse than the previous when in fact the exact opposite is the case. The chances of such a solar storm happening this solar cycle is less than the previous ones in our lifetime, but yet they make it seem like this will be the biggest and baddest solar cycle.

@Dandy
Quote:

Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

This part is what i call a wild assumption. They are assuming that such a grand minimum will only have a slight negative effect on temperatures. They also clearly say here that the AGW effect is much larger than the negative effect from such a grand minimum.
We simply dont know how much it affects temperatures.. past history suggests that the effect is most likely much larger than a mere -0.3c

@Dandy
Quote:

And why don't you come up with a link to more recent scientific work on these topics? What do you think takes more time - you copying & pasting the link you already have or me reading trough 6 "Global Warming"-threads to find the links you mentioned?

I have already posted links and sources before in many of the earlier threads. I cant be ####d to dig for sources or look through it again and again. Do you seriously think i bookmark everything just so i can have links handy for people like you?? Usually my links have been ignored here anyways..

I am not a damn scientific database computer like you assume me to be..

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @BrianK Like i said, that UFO story i posted just for fun to show how silly media can be. That site is only a collection of different news media stories on what can be the consequence of AGW. ... No - it's not "only a collection of different news media stories on what can be the consequence of AGW", it rather is "only a collection of different news media stories on what the journalists believe can be the consequence of AGW". But you sell it in a way as if they were scientifically secured findings, which they simply aren't. So please stop trying to fool us.

And SOME of these stories have serious SCIENTIFIC sources that are pretty much as wild as the journalist spin themselves. It is a random collection of EVERY such story found on global warming some laughable bad like UFO but also other ones that are serious. And media dosent help your cause when they exaggerate or post such bull either.

How many times do i have to repeat myself?? Anything i post here leads to discussion going in circles and not getting anywhere.

Quote:

But you sell it in a way as if they were scientifically secured findings, which they simply aren't. So please stop trying to fool us.

UH??? I even posted a link back to when i first posted that link where i CLEARLY said that i did not take it seriously. Stop putting words into my mouth.. I never ever claimed there was antyhing scientificially about that link so that is your made up words...

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... Again just wild assumption based on incomplete understanding of climate and flawed models. But you certainly have a complete understanding of climate and can come up with non-flawed, final models? Quote: Tomas wrote: Whenever they are found wrong they just adjust the models and add a new non proven assumption about the climate to explain why things did not happen the way the models and theory predicted. What do you think how research such work instead? Should they better leave imperfect models as they are and ignite a series of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere instead in order to increase global temperatures to proove that their model and theory are correct? I would say the better way is to check theory and model and - if necessary - to upgrade them in a way that they can reflect reality more precisely.

They should admit they had it wrong insted of finding yet another unproven theoritical explanation to explain why the observations contradicted their predictions and models. It happens again and again and then just tweak their theory and models afterwards and then claim they were right all along.. This aint science at all.

@Dandy
Quote:

Ahhhh - I see - randomly finding a link that supports your point suddenly is no cherry picking?

At least i am honest when i do it. I have already posted ones with more reliable/verifiable source before.
I again say that i am not a damn database or bookmark everything i read.
It looks pretty much identical to the ones i have seen earlier.
At least i did not select local/regional one to prove my point.
Quote:

And why don't you come up with a link to more recent scientific work on these topics? What do you think takes more time - you copying & pasting the link you already have or me reading trough 6 "Global Warming"-threads to find the links you mentioned?

I have already done that plenty of times before.
I have also already stated that jet streams started behaving unexpectedly during the last 3-4 years which coincidenced with this current solar minimum.
Quote:

May I remind you that you were talking about increased urricane activity in general: "I am talking about predictions like increased hurricane activity, ". In your sentence there was no hint that you were expecting an answer with global coverage...

When it comes to climate we use global data and not regional data. With your logic i could post links showing the local cooling here in middle of norway this year to show how the world is getting colder..

I am seriously getting sick and tired of discussing with you as it always goes in circles and you keep ignoring what i say or put words into my mouth.
I am also sick and tired of hearing the denialist being thrown around and find it insulting.
This is also one of the reason why i have sunk to your kindergarden level and started using the blind faith argument as well. Why cant we just discuss this in a civil manner for once and stop labelling each other because of our difference in opinion?

All i want to do in this thread is discuss the science and post the skeptic side of the story.

@Tomas

Quote:

I am also sick and tired of hearing the denialist being thrown around and find it insulting....All i want to do in this thread is discuss the science and post the skeptic side of the story.

On the 'all I want to do is disscuss the science comment' this kinda fails when you are posting erronous news reports and sites that fail scientifically.

As for being called a Denialist. There's a clear differnce between being skeptical and being a Denialist. The Skeptical person is open to both sides and is still weighing the evidence. It's fairly clear you reject the majority view of global climate science and are set at showing it's all wrong. That's a Denialist agenda it's not a true skeptical.

If you feel you are a skeptic I suggest you read some Michael Shermer. He's a great skeptic. He also was, for quite a while, skeptical of climatology. He's no longer. If you really read this I think you'll be able to better identify what is a denialist vs what is using skepticism to form an opinion.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: I am also sick and tired of hearing the denialist being thrown around and find it insulting....All i want to do in this thread is discuss the science and post the skeptic side of the story. On the 'all I want to do is disscuss the science comment' this kinda fails when you are posting erronous news reports and sites that fail scientifically. As for being called a Denialist. There's a clear differnce between being skeptical and being a Denialist. The Skeptical person is open to both sides and is still weighing the evidence. It's fairly clear you reject the majority view of global climate science and are set at showing it's all wrong. That's a Denialist agenda it's not a true skeptical. If you feel you are a skeptic I suggest you read some Michael Shermer. He's a great skeptic. He also was, for quite a while, skeptical of climatology. He's no longer. If you really read this I think you'll be able to better identify what is a denialist vs what is using skepticism to form an opinion.

I usually think i make it clear enough that it aint scientifically when i post things like that collection of global warming articles. I also often post news articles about climate when they are posted in newspaper or on sites like watts. Such new/fresh stories dont always yet have a source that is easy to find for the layman. I dont see why you find this a problem as you clearly do the same yourself with pro AGW articles or even non scientific articles that is only about flaming skeptics.

You say i am denialist.. I was actually slightly biased towards the global warming side some years ago until i realized that some of these pro agw stories was highly exaggerated and sometimes completely wrong. I then did my own research reading up on everything i could on both sides and found that the skeptic side made more sense to me and still do. I am of course biased towards skeptic side just like you are biased towards AGW but that does not make me a denialist.
If earth somehow continues to warm up over the next decades while sun and ocean cycles are in negative mode, then i would definitely rethink my stance and even admit that i was wrong.

Pro AGW people, politicians and pro agw scientists often scream denialists even if someone is slightly skeptical or even lukewarmer. Also the word denialist is bad in itself as it compares skeptics to extreme people who deny the holocaust.
It is simply no longer politicially correct to be skeptical about any part of AGW today.

@Tomas

Quote:

I also often post news articles about climate when they are posted in newspaper or on sites like watts... dont see why you find this a problem

I don't have any problem with you doing that. The problem I have is that I find it disengenious to claim Quote:

All i want to do in this thread is discuss the science

when you are posting items that clearly aren't science or have journlistic biases. It seems you want to discuss more than 'the science' but also want to demonstrate how the politics and press are handling these issues.

Quote:

You say i am denialist..

Yes it is the label I use when someone, as you have, claimed that the core of climate science is all wrong. And as for the term Quote:

found that the skeptic side

there is no 'skeptic' side. Skeptics take the information in and make changes in their opinion as the results are displayed. Only posting anti-GW stuff is a denialist action not a skeptical one. Why? The person is failing to be skeptical on their own sources. A true skeptic questions it all.

Quote:

If earth somehow continues to warm up over the next decades while sun and ocean cycles are in negative mode, then i would definitely rethink my stance and even admit that i was wrong.

I think we need to see a model for this stance. Why, for instance, would the oceans be in a negative mode to be pro-human CO2 causes? As the planet warms, doesn't matter the source, the oceans are bound to warm too as they are part of the climate. Is there a realistic case where the planet as a whole warms while the oceans get cooler?

Quote:

Also the word denialist is bad in itself as it compares skeptics to extreme people who deny the holocaust

I'm open to any word. Except for 1 - skeptic. Because people are directing their 'skepticism' with an agenda to prove the other side wrong. They often fail to critque their own side and thus fail at true skepticism. Denialists are closer to a conspiracy theorist than a true skeptic. My suggestions are Anti-GW as it associates them with other groups that deny science such as Anti-Vaccers. Another suggestion might be pseudoskeptics, but that's likely too long and complicated to spell.

A good example of denialist behavior is someone here posted that 1 person came out with charges against the IPCC and therefore all the IPCC's clams of consensus are bunk. That wasn't skeptism that was a denialist action. Why? The person didn't take the time to understand what consensus truly means and that the IPCC is clearly not the law giver which estabalishes scientific consensus. It's an organization operating within the consensus. Saying 1 person brought down the house of cards is only true if there is some nefarious cabal of scientists. This posting was a denailist claim of conspirarcy not a skeptical approach by any means.

@BrianK
Quote:

when you are posting items that clearly aren't science or have journlistic biases. It seems you want to discuss more than 'the science' but also want to demonstrate how the politics and press are handling these issues.

Yeah.. I should have made that part more clear i guess.
Quote:

there is no 'skeptic' side. Skeptics take the information in and make changes in their opinion as the results are displayed. Only posting anti-GW stuff is a denialist action not a skeptical one. Why? The person is failing to be skeptical on their own sources. A true skeptic questions it all.

I dont really need to post pro agw here, as you and dandy do that job for me.
The newspapers are filled with it daily anyways, so impossible for me to avoid it even if i wanted.
I do read pro agw stuff even though i am so called denialist according to your opinion.
And i am like i said heavily biased towards AGW effect being so small that it is insignificant as a climate driver.
Quote:

I think we need to see a model for this stance. Why, for instance, would the oceans be in a negative mode to be pro-human CO2 causes? As the planet warms, doesn't matter the source, the oceans are bound to warm too as they are part of the climate. Is there a realistic case where the planet as a whole warms while the oceans get cooler?

I really dont understand what you mean by "Why, for instance, would the oceans be in a negative mode to be pro-human CO2 causes?"
Quote:

A good example of denialist behavior is someone here posted that 1 person came out with charges against the IPCC and therefore all the IPCC's clams of consensus are bunk. That wasn't skeptism that was a denialist action. Why? The person didn't take the time to understand what consensus truly means and that the IPCC is clearly not the law giver which estabalishes scientific consensus. It's an organization operating within the consensus. Saying 1 person brought down the house of cards is only true if there is some nefarious cabal of scientists. This posting was a denailist claim of conspirarcy not a skeptical approach by any means.

I have seen enough evidence for that statement to be true. Both media, politicians and scientists have been quoted as saying there is a consensus that AGW leads to catastrophic climate changes and this is just yet more evidence to support that they "lied" about that part.
But now i guess they will spin the meaning of how that word was used..
I dont have to be a denialist just because i think IPCC and some scientists are corrupt.
I am still open to the fact that i can be wrong about the science itself even though i doubt it.

The word consensus was clearly used in the context to show that IPCC got the majority of scientists and politicians on their side while scientist who are skeptic about the AGW effect are in the minority.
There is clearly no agreement among scientists that even the best case scenario of a few degrees increase could happen as a result of AGW.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... Quote: I would say the better way is to check theory and model and - if necessary - to upgrade them in a way that they can reflect reality more precisely. Science does this all the time. Gravity was F=MA until a more accurate model was constructed. While F=MA is used when less accuracy is okay the model of General Relativity is a clear improvement and is more accurate. However, even Relativity is flawed. It's not been rectified with the quantum. Using General Relativitiy on the minute produces and incorrect result.

Yeah - another thrilling topic.
I've read Einsteins books, some books of Stephen Hawking and am now digging through the works of the German physicist Burkhard Heim. I've bought all his books (unfortunately German only, but there are lots of papers in English language about his theory on the web - I can provide links, if someone should be interested) and am now in the middle of the process of reading them. Interesting stuff mixed with most heavy maths, but definitely worth the effort of reading.

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Do we conclude all gravity models are flawed and therefore it's all natural? Of course not that's what science does. Science works to understand the natural.

That's my understanding as well...

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Yet the Denialists say all the time -- climate models are flawed and it's all natural. So, just ignore it and do something else. This stops all progress of truly understanding what is occurring on the planet. I see this sort of activity as non-scientific and more akin to the 'god of the gaps' approach.

Fully agreed.

Last edited by Dandy on 18-Jun-2010 at 08:56 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas


Quote:

I should have made that part more clear i guess

Thanks. Feel free to publish whatever here. In related bad journalism there's new report about a 10' BigFoot siting in the central US. UGH!

Quote:

The newspapers are filled with it daily anyways, so impossible for me to avoid it even if i wanted.

Anti-GW news in the USA is similar.

Let me clarify:
You had said Quote:

If earth somehow continues to warm up over the next decades while sun and ocean cycles are in negative mode, then i would definitely rethink my stance and even admit that i was wrong.

What I was pressing is why you believe this must be the case. Where's your model to prove this condition would definitely show GW would theoretically be real if this occurred? The other question is since the oceans are an integral part of the climate cycle why do you believe they could be negative and the rest of the planet positive?

Also, we have seen the sun in negative cycles. The sun has a roughly 11 year cycle. Mid-2008 to early 2010 the sunflares and activity were incredibly low. For basic purpose of discussion let's call it no activity. During this time the planet continued to warm. The oceans continued to warm. 2009 was tied for the 2nd warmest year on record 2010, worldwide of course, is looking to be even hotter.

Quote:

I dont have to be a denialist just because i think IPCC and some scientists are corrupt.

Perhaps not but in my book it puts you closer to the conspiracy camp than the skeptic camp.

Quote:

There is clearly no agreement among scientists that even the best case scenario of a few degrees increase could happen as a result of AGW.

In the same sense there is clearly no agreement among scientists that evolutionary theory is true or that vaccines actually protect people.

@Dandy

Quote:

I've read Einsteins books, some books of Stephen Hawking and am now digging through the works of the German physicist Burkhard Heim.

I have read a bit of Heim. As you said they're mostly in german and after 20 years meine deustch ist sehr schlect. Well, at least don't make me write or speak it. I've read some english translations and writings about Heim. I find his stuff interesting and would like to see some more scientists play around with it.

Likewise String Theory is theoretical and unproven at best. String Theory works great mathematically but it doesn't mean it's true. This area also needs some real world experiments.

Though I think we're on the same page. The answer when something is felt to be misunderstood is not to declare it all natural and request it be ignored. Science is the philosophy of understanding the natural environment. It's job is to get to the bottom of this. Even if 'wrong' in it's present state the science should NOT be dropped but continue. I have 'faith' that eventually the scientific method will suss out the truth.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... Yes of course. I dont deny that solar storms could and will happen in the future. What bothers me is that they make it seem like this current solar cycle will be worse than the previous when in fact the exact opposite is the case.

Who are "they"?
I've never heard or read that anyone claimed that "this current solar cycle will be worse than the previous". I've just done a Googlew search for "solar cycle" and checked the first 5 results - none of them said that "this current solar cycle will be worse than the previous".
But what I found was this:

"
...
The great unknown

But as scientists toil to tame nature and make the universe a more predictable place, the solar system does not always comply.

For decades the regular solar cycle simply ceased, according to Soltau at the Kiepenheuer Institute.

"Between about 1650 and 1715, apparently there was very low solar activity, so this cyclic mechanism stopped, and they called this the Maunder Minimum," Soltau said.

Over the past two years the levels of solar activity were so low that there was some conjecture that a new Maunder Minimum period had begun. Only recently, Soltau said, had sunspots been seen leading the scientific community to believe that the solar activity cycle continues."

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The chances of such a solar storm happening this solar cycle is less than the previous ones in our lifetime, but yet they make it seem like this will be the biggest and baddest solar cycle.

Sorry - but I could not find such statements from climate scientists...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK
Quite simple really.. If AGW effect aint real or is at least highly exaggerated then global temps would most likely be expected to return to normal or below normal if natural cycles like oceans and sun switches into "cool" mode. If that happens and global temps still increase then i will have to rethink my stance. If you look at past grand minimums you would notice a lag between global temperatures and the minimum. It seems like there is roughly a decade~ lag between grand minimums and the drop of temperatures. It is impossible to come up with a model if you dont know the mechanism.
My opinion is that we simply dont have the data and knowledge about climate system to make reliable models.

For me only time will show if AGW theory is correct and i am betting that natural cycles are the strongest drivers.
Quote:

I dont have to be a denialist just because i think IPCC and some scientists are corrupt.

Corruption happens all the time all over the world including in science. Dosent have to be a giant conspiracy for corruption to happen.
IPCC has again proven over and over that they have exaggerated and kept errors secret and not corrected them even though they have been aware of it for quite some time.

@Dandy
Why do you have jump on absolutely everything i post here?
The "they" are news media, which i made clear earlier in this thread.
We were discussing how news media and journalists makes sensational headlines out of anything.
Quote:

Sorry - but I could not find such statements from climate scientists...

Go read about how the sun works and maybe also check the latest solar cycle predictions.
Lower sunspot numbers are a result of lower solar activity in general, which includes sun flares/solar storms. This cycle will be lowest in our lifetime unless something unexpected happens.
This does not mean that a solar storm cannot happen as there was even solar storms during maunder minimum which is basically the lowest solar cycles we have on records.

Here is a example of what i mean by bad journalism: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/solar_storms/
Quote:

NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)

Not as bad as the article we had in Norwegian news though..

You should seriously read what i say before attacking my posts.
This is not the first time you have put words into my mouth.

Last edited by Tomas on 18-Jun-2010 at 03:20 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Quite simple really.. If AGW effect aint real or is at least highly exaggerated then global temps would most likely be expected to return to normal or below normal if natural cycles like oceans and sun switches into "cool" mode.

I get the sun switching into a "cool" mode. It's a force external to the planet. It gives us far more energy than it receives from earth. What I don't get in the Tomas theory is how oceans would switch into a "cool" mode. Oceans obviously get heat from the planet and surrounding atmosphere. How would Oceans cool down when the air and ground is warming?

Quote:

My opinion is that we simply dont have the data and knowledge about climate system to make reliable models.

There is a degree of unknown about the climate. That's why there is a dozen+ models and each model varies these unknowns in different ways. But, saying we know something and that something is usable is different than saying we know nothing and therefore can't do anything.

Maybe you should look at the problem this way instead. If we really don't know that CO2, or other chemicals humans release, are good or bad for the environment isn't the most conservative action to ensure our releases are offset in a way that we can feel confident it is only the natural course of the planet in operation? What your approach says is since we don't know if harm is occuring feel free to continue dumping millions of tons of CO2. If not knowning is the 'bad' item then the safest course of action is ensuring that the use isn't harmful by removing the item that could potentially be harmful. Seems the Thomas Model says don't worry about leaping without looking.

Quote:

Dosent have to be a giant conspiracy for corruption to happen

Sure corruption does happen. But, on a global scale of thousands of scientists all in the same direction? That's unrealistic at best.

@BrianK
What about PDO, AMO and el nino versus la nina and so on? There are also other natural climate cycles that have or might be moving into "cold" mode.
Again time will tell what will really happen.
I believe that temperature is modulated by all such varying factors.
Quote:

There is a degree of unknown about the climate. That's why there is a dozen+ models and each model varies these unknowns in different ways. But, saying we know something and that something is usable is different than saying we know nothing and therefore can't do anything. Maybe you should look at the problem this way instead. If we really don't know that CO2, or other chemicals humans release, are good or bad for the environment isn't the most conservative action to ensure our releases are offset in a way that we can feel confident it is only the natural course of the planet in operation? What your approach says is since we don't know if harm is occuring feel free to continue dumping millions of tons of CO2. If not knowning is the 'bad' item then the safest course of action is ensuring that the use isn't harmful by removing the item that could potentially be harmful. Seems the Thomas Model says don't worry about leaping without looking.

You cannot predict future climate without understanding the climate system. Such models are just more or less useless in tha fasion they are used today.
There are absolutely nothing to suggest that CO2 is bad for climate or environment either, infact it looks like life thrives during periods of higher than current CO2 concentrations.
The only evidence you really have are seen in incomplete computer models that dont take into account the unknown feedbacks and natural cycles. If you look at past it actually seems like it was temperatures that drove the CO2 and not the other way around.
How could you have sudden coolings happening with CO2 concentrations being in thousands of ppm range?? Or sudden warmings that dwarfs the modern "global warming" period during periods of pre industrial levels of CO2?
Even during warm times when CO2 was in thousands of ppm range it was still liveable even in equator regions. The main difference from now was that climate was more alike on all latitudes and all seasons while equator regions was around the same temperature as today.
The only real worry i see is increased sea level but even that is something that can be prepared for.
I worry more about potentential future ice age that is most likely "around the corner" due to milankovich cycles. Such a ice age lasting tens of thousands of years would be far more catastrophic than a less cold climate at high latitudes and less cold winters.

But either way real observations points towards temperature driving CO2 and not the other way.

Last edited by Tomas on 18-Jun-2010 at 04:13 PM.