http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

If you make an average over the previous ice ages, where the temperature changes clearly are leading the CO2 changes, the temperature changes caused CO2 changes in the order of 8-10 ppmv per K. Even in the Eemian when the average global temperature (trees growing far more north in Alaska) was some 3 K warmer than today, CO2 levels were not higher than 290 ppmv. During the past (pre-industrial) millenium, CO2 changes were not more than 10 ppmv in ice cores, which followed temperature changes with some 50 years lage (Law Dome ice core). Thus the current CO2 levels, based on natural fluctuations, would be below 280 ppmv, while they are near 370 ppmv.
Second proof of the increase of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning is in the isotope ratio between 13C and 12C. Plants tend to use more of the lighter isotope to build their cellulose, which at last is incorporated in all fossil fuels. Thus if lots of fossil fuels are burned, the “normal” ratio of 13C/12C will be thinned, which is what is observed. The detection method for a trend is accurate enough to even see the seasonal changes with plant growth. See Keeling under “Trends”.
Despite the increase of CO2 from burning, some halve of it is absorbed by the oceans, this is because a higher partial pressure in the air shifts the equilibrium between CO2 in the air and water, until the vapour pressure of CO2 above the surface again is in equilibrium, just like (the other way out) unscrewing a soda bottle gives you a lot of CO2 bubbles, because the pressure above the surface changed.

Of course, more is happening, as CO2 in the oceans again is in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions, which may be used in biological processes. But temperature of the oceans doesn’t, neither biological processes explain the increase of CO2 in air since the start of the industrial revolution.

In the same time period (1900-2000) as the observed warming, we have a sudden rise in solar activity. The problem now is which one (solar and/or CO2) is the main cause of the warming, or both…

A Merry Christmas to all…

not to say that my model is perfect and without flaws but it does eliminate some the problems in AGW models…such as why surface temperatures are warmer then atmospheric temps,(solar global warming) and why GW predeeded CO2 increases,(gw causes co2 accumilation) and why most accumilation of CO2 happend in the latests quarter of the current warming period. (gw causes co2 accumilation) Or why 50% of the estimated human contribution of the CO2 has disapeared. (the oceans are still cold enough to absorb it)

Whenever we try to design scientific theories that describe something, we must know which quantities in reality will be described by our theories and we must be able to isolate them.

By isolating them, I mean both theoretical as well as experimental isolation. In theories we must know – or at least feel – that the effects we have neglected do not change our predictions too much. In experiments we must know – or at least have rational reasons to believe – that the effects we observe are not caused by something else, something “more ordinary”.

The climate modellers almost never try to follow these lines. They have a completely vague, sleeky theories that predicts anything and everything – warming, cooling, bigger variations, smaller variations, more hurricanes, less winds, increased circulations, diminished circulation, more ice in Antarctica, less ice in Antarctica, and so forth – and then they’re arguing that the data agree with these predictions.

Of course there is no direct way how one can ever construct a scientific framework out of this mess. To do science, one must focus on a limited class of questions that are sufficiently well-defined and that have a chance to be “cracked” by a theory.

When we try to argue that the humans are suddenly dictating the climate trends – after 5 billion years when they were dictated by other, more natural things – it is a rather extraordinary conjecture that deserves extraordinary evidence. For getting any evidence, it is absolutely necessary to understand how the climate was behaving for 5 billion years before the hypothetical “revolution” occured around 1917. We must know what were the fluctuations and how they depended on the time scale. Only once we know the background, we can study additional effects.

Studying additional trends above a background that we don’t need to understand is equivalent to the Biblical literalism.

If I open a tap in my swimming pool and the water rises corresponding to half the amount I put in , the tap is not causing the rise, because I don’t know how fast my circulation pump is working, is that what you mean?