I slap my forehead every time someone hauls out charts comparing the human production of CO2 with the recent trend in global warming.
They just don't get it: Correlation does NOT imply causation, a fact the entire US medical community got handed to them a few years back when they noticed a correlation between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and lower cardio-vascular disease (CVD), and began recommending HRT to reduce CVD.
As it turns out, HRT actually increases CVD. The stats were skewed simply because the average woman on HRT had better diets and exercise programs than the average woman not on HRT. (source)
Forhead slap.
Contrary to popular misconception, not all climatologists have climbed aboard the "humans are causing global warming" bandwagon. (source)
Can anyone say for certain that they know human production of CO2 is behind the current rise in temperatures? Or is there merely a convenient correlation?
Can you honestly discount the possibility that warming temperatures are instead causing a rise in CO2 due to more rapid bacterial decay of vegetable matter and longer non-freezing temps around the world? Can you argue agains the fact that higher temps result in increased termite production of methane, another very serious greenhouse gas?
How do you know that global warming isn't due to sunspots, and that the increase in greenhouse gases aren't simply a byproduct of the global warming process?
Yes. Sunspots.
Contrary to popular misconception, not all scientists have climbed aboard the "humans are causing global warming" bandwagon. In fact, quite a few highly respected climatologists who believe in global warming neverless refute, with fact, our over-hyped role.
Based on a variety of techniques, including direct observation, as well as changes in key elements and radioisotopes, we have an accurate record of sunspot activity over the last 11,000 years. Two key periods of significant increase or decrease of activity are known as the Maunder Minimum, and the Medieval Warm Period.
Furthermore, we have accurate measurements of surface temperatures for several thousand years.
As it turns out, sunspot activity decreased from the 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots a year to just 50 sunspots a year during the Maunder Minimum. This minimum, occuring between 1645 and 1715, corresponds (correlates) with the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1650 to just before 1900. This period was marked by glacial and icepack expansion, general cessation of summers throughout much of Northern Europe, significant increase in rains, and due to a much shorter growing season, serious boughts of famine.
Similarly, during the Medieval Warm Period (1100-1250), sunspot activity increased dramatically, as did temperatures to the extent where grapes were being grown in Northern England (previously too cold, and back to being too cold even today).
There have been other minima and maxima temperature fluctuations which also correlate strongly with sunspot activity (Oort and Dalton minimums), and far more importantly, no variations which do not correlate!
And, amazingly (BIG forehead slap again), these periods of previous global warming have little correlation with CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Oh, just because I wanted to slap my forehead a third time, as it turns out, the current period of global warming is strongly correlated with (yet again) a significant increase in sunspot activity known as the Modern Maximum.
So, if you've come this far, you're either scratching your head or are steaming mad. But if you haven't followed the links, you're doing yourself a grave disservice and wasting your share of literally billions of tax dollars (global warming is an expensive industry...). So please take the time to follow the links and learn a bit more about the REST of the story that perhaps some, including news alarmists (hey, global warming sells a LOT of papers, air time, etc.) and even some scientists (who're riding the global warming alarms all the way to the bank), would rather you remain in the dark over while you fork over your hard-earned cash.
