On Mar 4, 10:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 4 Mar 2007 07:21:30 -0800, wrote:

... snip





Again, looking at much of the research the temperature increase _preceeds_
the CO2 increase.http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...00000yrfig.htm
You claim the opposite, based on what?

Causality.

Um, FF, you *do* know what causality is, right?

Yes. The greenhouse effect is caused by the earth's atmosphere,
the effect is a surface temperature higher than it would have, absent
those gases. If you change the composition of the atmosphere,
that equilibrium temperature will change.

If so, then you
recognize that Bruce is correct in this assessment regarding past data
invalidating the idea that rise in CO2 is the causal agent for temperature
increase.

What casual process does the data he presents demonstrate? How
does it contradict the theory that the Greenhouse effect is caused by
the Earth's atmosphere, and that the dominant Greenhouse gases
are water, methane, and carbon dioxide?

What the data is showing is that rise in CO2 concentration is NOT the
causal effect of global warming since the data shows that global warming
preceded the rise in CO2 concentration.

False.

Even if the temperatures and CO2 levels are being correctly inferred
from
the ice core data, they tell us little or nothing about other
parameters.
How do they relate to variation in the solar constant or Milankovitch
cycles?
So even if the observation that warming preceded a rise in CO2, is
correct, it does not justify a conclusion that a rise in CO2 cannot
cause a global temperature rise.

Thus, for CO2 to have been the
causative effect of global temperature effect would be a non-causal event
(in the mathematical sense of the word -- i.e present result being
dependent upon a future event).

I'm not clear on your opinion. Do you deny the Greenhouse effect
altogether, or do you merely contend that the equlibrium temperature
established by the Greenhouse effect is independent of the
composition
of the atmosphere?

I also do not see that you have explained to us the causative effect
you said was demonstrated by the Vostok data

The causative relationship between global temperature and the
concentrations of water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide in
the Earth's atmosphere is firmly established by the spectral
characteristics of those gases.


Your argument would appear to be based on correlation.

Um, no, correlation would be different.

How so?

Correlation shows simply that, how related two things are in a
statistical sense. Correlation does not imply cause (i.e. the infamous
"small dogs cause cancer" statistical correlation).


I am familiar with the definition of correlation. I was asking how
the Vostok ice core data would be different if there was a
correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Now, given that GW theorists are insisting that the increase in CO2 will
cause global warming when the data cited above shows that CO2 increases are
preceded by global warming indicates that the premise, based upon past
data, is incorrect.

Like I said before, relying on correlation without regard to causality
is
perilous.

--

FF