Hullo Alex,I'm not sure whether you or another poster wrote of a...

Hullo Alex,

I'm not sure whether you or another poster wrote of a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, but over the years since the last Glacial Maximum (peaking from 26,500 years BP to 19,000 Years BP (before the present), temperature change has preceded CO2 levels by approximately 800 years on average. As we know, correlation is not causation; however, a rising temperature with warming oceans, results in more CO2 emitted from the oceans, so it does make some sense to me. So as the increase in CO2 follows temperature, it is difficult to conclude it is a cause.

Now when we go back as far as the Paleozoic period (i.e greater than 250 million years ago), little correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is found in these sources, which you may care to review with some diligence: on temperature, www.scotese.com/climate.htm; and on CO2, R.A. Berner, 2001, American Journal of Science, vol 301, pp 182-204. Berner notes (in Fig 18) that CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppm in that long period - you will see there are substantial fluctuations. I notice in passing that the planet did not fry, but that the climate was indeed very different back then.

You may also find it useful to carefully read some of the IPCC papers - you can choose from a range of updates. That's something I did over a dozen years ago, as I genuinely did not know what to conclude. Now I mean the actual papers, not the Summaries for Policy Makers. The latter are not scientific documents, but policy statements. I found a disconnect quite often between the statements in the scientific papers, and those in the Summaries. The latter did not convey the qualifications found in the scientific papers.

The media simply latches on to what is given, and typically, revels in anything perceived as alarming - after all, that's what sells the news! I find it is essential to dig a bit deeper.