Comment: You can't possibly be serious, can you?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You want real scientific data? (see in situ)

You can't possibly be serious, can you?

That's your answer for 'real scientific data'? It's not factual, sourced in science or statistically accurate. It makes points based on assumptions that simply aren't valid.

To be brief, I believe your entire point centers around the statement that CO2 and temp have broken their correlation. What is that based on? Have you any data anywhere in all of history showing a non-natural forcing of CO2 and how that affects temperature as a feedback? Nope, didn't think so.

The temp and CO2 correlation is a catch-22, positive feedback cycle with a couple caveats. Completely understanding what that means will show you just how errant it is to compare past temp/CO2 charts to future results with no external factors. In other words, let me simplify.

IN THE PAST: "Something" started a chain of events. The sun, the magnetosphere (minimal really), the ecosystem, the CO2 levels, the water vapor, the earth's tilt... something started a change. That resulted in some temp rise. Many years later, the CO2 rose a little. To our current time scale, this delay of 400-700 years seems long but to our historical record of ancient measurements, it's indistinguishable. So, CO2 rose and that caused more temp increase. This cycle repeated for very long periods. In the end, the CO2 really didn't rise much because the cycle was broken somewhere else. This caused the return to normal.

IN THE PRESENT: We have burned a very measureable amount of fossil fuels in a very measureable time frame. We have energy records and industry records and so forth. We know very well how much CO2 we've put in the atmosphere. When we calculate how that should affect the concentration, we're damn close to perfect. Now, given that the CO2 has now been artificially raised, we're seeing the beginnings of the temp rise that should result. Keep in mind that for the past 'small' rises, the temp is delayed by some unknown amount of time which we can't determine because CO2 increases follow temp increases by a long delay.

It's like A causes more B which causes more A which causes more B. Natural things cause some A and we're causing more B. The fact is that just because temp has caused CO2 to rise in the past doesn't mean that CO2 rise doesn't cause temp rises.

In conclusion, we ARE causing CO2 rise (unprecedented) and it IS causing increased temperature and that IS causing a CHANGE in how various climates around the world work. Some places see more heat, some more cold, some more violent weather, some less, some may even see what people would term uncharacteristically beautiful weather. But on the whole, it's a change and it's happening faster than ecosystems can adapt to. ...humans included.

Oh, and just so you know. A youtube guy quoting MET is not real scientific data. Neither is a science museum but I'll give you the quoted paper on ice depth core readings. I just don't see the relevance (as I stated above).

If you want hard science quotes in youtube form you should check out this playlist: