“Huh? So if Venus’ atmosphere was replaced by Argon or Nitrogen at the same pressure it would be at the same temperature?”
No, it would be at a different pressure due to different densities, and as a consequence, a different temperature.
In general, I see how aghast some of you are that I dare challenge “scientific establishment.” I understand that. Remember, it wasn’t long ago when the favorite scare was that there was going to be another ice age due to CO2. I think it’s better to question prevailing science in this case, especially when it comes to the IPCC which is policy-driven, not truth-driven.
“See kewp’s response about short term fluctuations. More generally, the correlation over the last 650K years is very, very solid.”
Yes, very solid in favor of temperature rising before CO2 does. This supports the theory that the ocean is absorbing less of it due to temperature.
My point was that in the past 120 years, CO2 has risen monotonically, but temperature has not; most of the temperature rise occurred before the bulk of CO2 occurred. This greatly weakens AGW, and the best hand-wave that you can do about it is to say “well, it’s a delayed action.” This is not hard evidence. I find it funny how AGW supporters choose time frames that suit them. Give them 8000 years of cycical evidence (that what is happening today happened before), they reject it. Give them 30 years of cyclical evidence (it got cooler then), they reject it. But how about exactly since 1942, now they’re convinced that man is the culprit.
