Quote:
Originally Posted by wildsage  Funny source you chose. This guy uses outdated data (1920s, 1950s) and quotes such "owned" sources as Patrick Michaels. His qualifications are not made clear on his webpage (he is a former engineer for the WV Office of Miner's Safety, oh and an amateur fossil-hunter) but he believes that the Milankovich cycles have the greatest input on global temps. He is entitled to his opinion but he is in a distinct minority and hardly has the professional standing to go against the experts.
Oh, and his ice-core charts? Don't know how he got his results... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Deep ice tells long climate story
"Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.
The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented."
And here's another non-Wiki source for you Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niņo of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niņo-La Niņa cycle." |
In what way do those sources conflict? Can you show me a source with data that shows a rise in CO2 levels causing a change in temperature (ie, the levels change, and then the temperature changes)?