Throughout 700,000 years of ice core data we can see a relationship between temperature and CO2. Temperatures go up and CO2 follows, temps go down and CO2 follows. This is not only seen in the ice core but in the Beck Reconstructions as well.<quoted text>
We see a trend of increasing temperatures correlated with rise in CO2 levels. That observation does not prove causality, but when the causal mechanism i.e. the so-called greenhouse effect, is known and accepted by scientists (even those skeptical of AGW), and can explain the observed positive correlation, you have to admit there is more than a smoking gun here.
I do not dispute the GHG effect. What I dispute is that man's burning of fossil fuels has caused the temp increase.
A study of atmospheric water vapor was completed and determined that a full 30% of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s was from an increase in water vapor.
Water vapor is 96% of GHGs. The same study showed that water vapor decreased in the last decade and the decrease would have had a negative impact of 25%.
Not a chemist, but there is a connection between water vapor and co2 in the atmosphere, the more water vapor the more co2 the atmosphere can hold.
So did increasing temps cause an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere and is this why more co2 is currently found?
There's the rub, where did it come from. All things static, CO2 would have increased if temperatures increased. That's a given based on 700,000 years of proxy study.
So how much would be man made and is the amount of man made co2 enough to change the climate and should we be taxed for it.
My agenda is specific. I do not want to be taxed for an unproven premise. I have no objection to climate science, no objections to alternative fuels.
The pattern of increase in atmospheric co2 is what we would expect to see. Temps started up about 1850 after the LIA and CO2 in the current record started up about 1959. Or much sooner if you look at the Beck Reconstructions.