Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

I don’t see any voting penalties would be just, however I believe his case is irrelevant due to this. To make it relevant, though, he can re-post it next round or he can totally change his case to accommodate the debate. In any case, no voting penalties should occur. Just the usual “its irrelevant, post it next round” would be a more just punishment. Correlations It is important to note in statistics correlations occur, but this does not mean causation is occurring. Everyone in the climate agrees: there is a CO2 correlation involved with climate. The question is how strong it is, and if other correlations exist. Now, the correlation of CO2 and climate is not considered “good”. Understanding correlations for the argument is not very complicated. A 1.0 correlation (r=1) is a perfect correlation; this would make a good case for causation. A 0.9 correlation (r=0.9_ would be considered a “good” correlation. 0.5 (r=0.5) would be considered a “fair” correlation. And something above .5 means something can have a large effect or a visual one on climate, though something in the .7-1.0 range would be ideal. 0.25 (r=0.25) is a poor correlation. And 0 (or negative) is no match at all. So, what is the CO2 correlation? Not surprisingly, it is under the .5 marks. But if CO2 was the main driver of climate, it should have a fairly high correlation, shouldn’t it? It’s impossible for something to have a causation effect if it has no correlation. But not only must the CO2 correlation be examined, but so should other factors (PDO + AMO, and the sun). Alarmist believers (believe CO2 warming occurs) usually cite Maua Loa as a main CO2 source as it shows large increases in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Ice core data also shows CO2 count is rising. When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong. Correlations for other factors, though, seem a lot more promising. The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much better correlation then CO2. Its correlation to surface temperatures is relatively strong, .57 (r = 0.57). This means the correlation is rated between “fair” and “good”. The correlation between the two main ocean currents, PDO and AMO, is particularly striking. The correlation is .83, the paper argues the correlation is in the “good” range, showing promise for this factor in the modern warming. It also shows its R2 is stronger then the CO2 correlation by a factor of almost two. Te scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). IF CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade? Supporting references: [1][2] Why its unlikely human CO2 causes global warming I am not doubting CO2 can cause warming, as it is part of the greenhouse effect, I doubt, however, whether or not human caused CO2 can have a significant effect. So here are a few facts, which are not in dispute. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is relatively small, it is a trace gas, and it is under one percent. The atmospheric CO2 is about 388 ppm, now slightly higher. Now, the amount of that CO2 that is human causes it also very small, it is under 5%. The number of 5% is always changing it is usually less. So, lets do the math. CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere; lets say humans create 4% of that (a valid estimate) that means 0.0016% of the atmosphere is human created CO2. To simplify the numbers, that’s 1.6 parts per 100,000. Imagine a building with 100,000 people in it emitting heat making it really hot in there, and people claim those 1.6 people are causing the temperature hike. They kick them out of the building. What effect would it have? It would be immeasurable [3]. Does it sound logical 1.6 parts per 100,000 would cause global warming? Other factors There are many other factors, two already discussed is Solar and the PDO/AMO ocean currents, and these are the most discussed. Others discussed are notably cosmic rays. Research on cosmic rays makes the most interesting point, though: our galaxy. Yes, our galaxy might be why the thermometer is rising, that is why the IPCC is screaming. Though they ignore this theory… anyway, our position in the galaxy might be the reason we are warming up. Our earth is on the edge of our galaxy – it’s a suburb – and every 225 million years it circles around and makes one “cosmic year”. Our galaxy has many stars that come out of the sides like scythes. It’s like a ninja throwing star. Every 135 years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy; it then receives unusually large amounts of cosmic rays bombarding us. Less cosmic rays, more heating less cooling. Likewise, more rays more cooling (they cause clouds). We are currently in an area with fewer rays, meaning we are obviously going to face large amounts of warming [3]. Another convincing theory is the 1,500-year solar cycle mainly pushed by S. Fred Singer. Though other studies prove the effect. One study argued the 1,500-year cycle (+/- 500 years) did indeed exist, and it was very possible that this could be the cause of recent rapid climate change, and the IPCC overlooking the theory is naïve. In other words, significant evidence proves the point and it is a convincing theory for natural caused global warming [4]. And as I am on room constraint I will have one more factor I look at: PDO + AMO possibilities. As proven earlier, there is already a strong case for this as it has a 0.83 R correlation. The paper earlier argued there was a strong correlation between ocean currents and global temperatures, and that it should be a candidate for the cause of climate change. Anthony Watts provides a few graphs for us, also: [Without regressions] [with regressions] . http://wattsupwiththat.com... Conclusion: Natural factors, not human CO2, causes [current] warming. And it is highly unlikely the minute amount of human emisions is causing the warming we currently face. Sources: [1] . http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [3] MacRae, Paul. “ False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. ” Victoria, B. C. : Spring Bay, 2010. [4] Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change” National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 8, pp. 3814-3819, (April 2000)