# The CO2 concentration graph: Guesses solicited for its future shape and consequences **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2009, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391 "2009-08-14T11:27:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/21 "2009-08-16T19:08:26Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > [No it isn’t](http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) > [No, it’s pretty constant](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html) (give or take a few hundredths of a degree). So you accept my side bet then, **ralph** , or is this just another vacuous AGW-denying flyby? Please, _read the OP - all of it_, and engage with the questions I ask. > > So the question thus becomes, _when_ is your guess for this, however vague? The CO2 concentration is rising by about 17 ppmv per decade, and a timescale of mere decades would seem to be _very_ optimistic for this replacement to embed itself worldwide, even with strong government mandates. Without them, I can’t see it coming about at all this century, hence my guess of 600+ ppmv. > But to suggest that a large future concentration - _ie,_ much larger than the mere 35% rise seen already - **might** have _no_ significant consequences (which your “no idea” implies) is surely to question the very foundation of the Greenhouse Effect itself, is it not? If I asked you to guess what the consequences of _removing_ a huge proportion of the CO2 from our atmoshpere were, would you be similarly unsure? According to Dr.Abdussamatov, the CO2 results from the solar warming -it is a consequence, not a cause. If the sun is not responsible, then why is Mars warming up, at the same time as the earth. Invest in fur coats, it will be a long stretch od cold ahaeead! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/22 "2009-08-16T19:53:04Z")
Oh, that Abdussamatov… [http://www.desmogblog.com/russian-warming-denier-blinded-by-sunspots](http://www.desmogblog.com/russian-warming-denier-blinded-by-sunspots) > [@](#): > > “Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005.” > > In saying so, Abdussamatov has taken a page from the Bob Carter School of graph reading: only by ignoring everything that happened before 1998 and making long-term climate projections based on very short-term weather, can you make this assumption. > > In fact, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which provided the attached graph ), points out that last year’s high global average temperature occurred when “the equatorial Pacific Ocean [was] in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.” So, while we might otherwise have expected a cool year, we got one of the warmest on record - not really pointing to an impending decline. > > Both Abdussamatov and the folks at Goddard also agree that last year’s high temperatures could not have been caused by sunspot activity. Goddard notes that solar irradiance was at a minimum last year, and Abdussamatov agrees that “the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s.” Yet somehow the Russian is happy to ignore the implications of that trend and use hot temperatures in one year to declare an end to global warming. > > This, by the way, is the same scientist who got so much press by claiming that current warm temperatures on Mars proved that the sun - and not human activity - is behind the global warming trend on Earth, a theory patiently debunked on [realclimate.org](http://realclimate.org). > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/11/YhHoCb6OBiI)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/uploads/7/hWJeqgG3Tl8)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/23 "2009-08-16T21:17:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is OK IMHO to be an agnostic regarding the \*\*possible damage or level of it \*\*that AGW could cause to humanity, it is not reasonable to be an agnostic regarding the chemistry and physical causes of AGW. I did read the update… I shall keep your admonishment in mind, particularly should I lose the bet. Thanks. I note with wry amusement assorted parishioners who have been told it’s not OK not to believe that religion either. 🙂 What I won’t do is debate AGW. It’s hopeless. I have, essentially, put my risk out there in a substantive way, I think. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/24 "2009-08-16T21:43:26Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I did read the update… > > I shall keep your admonishment in mind, particularly should I lose the bet. Thanks. > > I note with wry amusement assorted parishioners who have been told it’s not OK not to believe that religion either. 🙂 > > What I won’t do is debate AGW. It’s hopeless. I have, essentially, put my risk out there in a substantive way, I think. The issue here is: do you understand all the risks on the wager? Because it seems that you are assuming that the temperatures in Chicago or the north east is evidence enough to make your wager. Only that, as reported by the same people, the temperature in that area was an anomaly last July; at the global level the temperature increased, making it the second warmest July on record globally: [http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second\_warmest\_july\_on\_record.html](http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second_warmest_july_on_record.html) So, I’m also making sure that you do understand that **SentientMeat** is not referring to just the local temperature in Chicago. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/25 "2009-08-17T01:51:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The issue here is: do you understand all the risks on the wager? > > Because it seems that you are assuming that the temperatures in Chicago or the north east is evidence enough to make your wager. > > Only that, as reported by the same people, the temperature in that area was an anomaly last July; at the global level the temperature increased, making it the second warmest July on record globally: > > [http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second\_warmest\_july\_on\_record.html](http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/08/second_warmest_july_on_record.html) > > So, I’m also making sure that you do understand that **SentientMeat** is not referring to just the local temperature in Chicago. Yer jes’ pullin’ my chain, right? The only “risk” here is wearing that placard. I’d wear the placard for free just for a good laugh from my friends. I seem to lack the requisite passion around AGW in the same way agnostics lack the earnest passion of a Sunday Schooler for spreading the Word and recruiting Believers. And I believe we established way earlier what the source would be for the global temperature. Now if you are wondering if the Pedant is so witless as to assume that if it’s cold here in Chicago, it must be cold everywhere…well, thanks for stepping in and clarifying, but frankly that hurt my feelings. (It is true I think the record cold here in Chicago suggests a relative insensitivity of climate to CO2 but that’s the stuff of another discussion and I really am uninterested in debating AGW.) **CP** is not the brightest candle on the altar but he’s not quite completely gone yet. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/26 "2009-08-17T02:21:23Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > According to Dr.Abdussamatov, the CO2 results from the solar warming > -it is a consequence, not a cause. So then, this warming must be much more dramatic than any we have seen in the last 750,000 years since the CO2 levels are significantly higher than any time during that period! It is a marvelous coincidence that just as the industrial revolution started: (1) The biosphere or oceans miraculously began to absorb all the CO2 that we started emitting. (2) The sun conspired to cause about the same amount of CO2 to be emitted (actually about a factor of two less since the level of CO2 rise is about half of what we would expect if all of our CO2 was absorbed). And, this doesn’t even discuss the isotopic evidence regarding the origin of the rise of CO2 levels. The statement that the CO2 levels are a consequence of something other than our emissions is just silly beyond belief. > [@](#): > > If the sun is not responsible, then why is Mars warming up, at the same time as the earth. It is fascinating how many of the very same people who had to be dragged kicking-and-screaming into accepting the overwhelming evidence we have from oodles of measurements to accept that the Earth is warming globally seem to be so convinced that there is global warming on Mars from extremely limited evidence. If you want a discussion of what is actually happening on Mars, go [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/), which is summarized thus: > [@](#): > > Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. We also have, by the way, very good measurements of the variations in solar luminosity in recent times, so we know that there is no significant trend in solar variations that could explain any general rise in temperatures across many planets. AGW skeptics have come up with fancy hypotheses to try to magnify the effect of solar variations on the Earth’s climate (such as the sun’s modulation of intergalactic cosmic rays and their effects on cloud formation). However (besides the problems with this hypothesis explaining the current warming on Earth), I don’t see how it could explain the warming of the very different Martian atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/27 "2009-08-17T07:44:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > According to Dr.Abdussamatov, the CO2 results from the solar warming But there has [_hasn’t been any_ appreciable solar warming](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html). > [@](#): > > -it is a consequence, not a cause. If the sun is not responsible, then why is Mars warming up, at the same time as the earth. [It isn’t](http://www.whfreeman.com/ENVIRONMENTALGEOLOGY/EXMOD36/F3614.HTM). And neither is Mercury or Venus. Even sad, demoted dwarf Pluto is getting colder. > [@](#): > > Invest in fur coats, it will be a long stretch od cold ahaeead! Am I to take this as an acceptance of the side bet? Why, **ralph** , I never thought you had it in you - congratulations on growing a pair! (Please explicitly inform us that you do _not_ mean to accept the wager if your pair remains unsurprisingly ungrown.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/28 "2009-08-18T12:07:28Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It has yet to be shown that the increase in atmospheric CO2 - which is undoubtedly due to man - has actually caused the temperature increase we are seeing. > > [Abdussamatov] is one of a number who propose that it’s the solar cycle which is causing global warming … Obviously if temperatures rise despite the lack of sunspot activity, then the theory will be disproven. On rereading this thread, and since AGW Deniers like **intention** and **Leaffan** are conspicuous by their absence here (guesses also solicited as to why _that_ might be :)), I’d like to pick this up with you if I may, **Quartz**. The [solar cycle](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html) looks set to continue its rather undramatic, steady oscillation around 1366 Wm[sup]-2[/sup] (give or take 1 Wm[sup]-2[/sup]) for a while yet. How many more years of warming would convince you, personally, that said warming _was_ due to the extra IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere? You see, the “natural factors only” model starts to diverge from the actual data at around the [start of the 1980’s](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/1.html) - that’s already _three decades_ of rising temperatures despite roughly constant solar warming. Would you require another three decades of divergence, or would, say, another 7 years convince you? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/29 "2009-08-19T11:19:24Z")
Sorry to keep pimping this thread in the hope that AGW-Deniers might show up, but I’ve just seen an article which gives them a back door to escape through (though they would need _huge_ balls to do so with a straight face): [Methane escaping from Arctic sea floor](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8205864.stm). This is pretty worrying, because a methane (CH[sub]4[/sub]) molecule has many more possible patterns of vibration that can absorb IR wavelengths than a simple CO2 molecule, such that it is something like 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas. But if, as **Quartz** suggests, the current warming _might_ be caused by something other than higher IR-absorbing gas concentrations, AGW Deniers could pull a remarkable stunt: They could claim that the warming up until, say, 1990 was natural (_eg._ solar), and that subsequent warming was caused by this methane release due to said natural warming, which is _also natural_ but which we’ve only just discovered! **jshore** , any ideas on how one might counteract this future bullshit beyond simply throwing up one’s hands in despair? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/30 "2009-08-19T18:30:21Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But if, as **Quartz** suggests, the current warming _might_ be caused by something other than higher IR-absorbing gas concentrations, AGW Deniers could pull a remarkable stunt: They could claim that the warming up until, say, 1990 was natural (_eg._ solar), and that subsequent warming was caused by this methane release due to said natural warming, which is _also natural_ but which we’ve only just discovered! > > **jshore** , any ideas on how one might counteract this future bullshit beyond simply throwing up one’s hands in despair? Well, what would be relevant are the methane concentrations in the atmosphere, not the amount released by this particular source. And, methane concentrations had actually leveled off for a while although they may be beginning to rise again. Also, I think the relative radiative forcing effects of methane and CO2 are known well enough that I don’t think it makes any sense to implicate methane and not CO2. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/31 "2009-08-19T20:31:08Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > On rereading this thread, and since AGW Deniers like **intention** and **Leaffan** are conspicuous by their absence here (guesses also solicited as to why _that_ might be :)) … Well, my guess would be that it’s because I hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet, so please re-insert your snark into your fundamental orifice. On an more practical note, what temperature record are you planning to use for this bet with Chief Pedant? Satellite? Which one? Terrestrial? Which one? PS - as has been repeatedly pointed out, “Deniers” is an insult. It is a pathetic, puerile attempt to equate people who happen to disagree with you with people who deny the Holocaust. Attempting to insult those who oppose you only reveals the weakness of your position. If I were to call AGW supporters say “Sheep”, you would be equally insulted, which is why I don’t do that. Please re-insert the term “Deniers” into the aforementioned location as well, it is not conducive to scientific discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/32 "2009-08-19T20:35:27Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Well, my guess would be that it’s because I hadn’t gotten around to reading it yet, so please re-insert your snark into your fundamental orifice. > > On an more practical note, what temperature record are you planning to use for this bet with Chief Pedant? Satellite? Which one? Terrestrial? Which one? > > PS - as has been repeatedly pointed out, “Deniers” is an insult. It is a pathetic, puerile attempt to equate people who happen to disagree with you with people who deny the Holocaust. Attempting to insult those who oppose you only reveals the weakness of your position. If I were to call AGW supporters say “Sheep”, you would be equally insulted, which is why I don’t do that. Please re-insert the term “Deniers” into the aforementioned location as well, it is not conducive to scientific discussion. Deniers is appropriate when the vast majority of practicing climate scientists think AGW is happening and only a tiny fringe composed primarily of non climate scientists make arguments it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/33 "2009-08-19T22:42:38Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Deniers is appropriate when the vast majority of practicing climate scientists think AGW is happening and only a tiny fringe composed primarily of non climate scientists make arguments it isn’t. Even if that were true (it isn’t), it still wouldn’t be appropriate. Among other things, it is an insult to those who died in the Holocaust … some of us still care about that, although I suppose YMMV. w. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/34 "2009-08-19T22:55:23Z")
Is that actually a connection that’s widely made? I’m honestly curious, because I don’t think I would’ve made the leap denier = holocaust denier. Does the word generally carry this connection in English? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/35 "2009-08-19T23:47:42Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Is that actually a connection that’s widely made? I’m honestly curious, because I don’t think I would’ve made the leap denier = holocaust denier. Does the word generally carry this connection in English? Seems to me that the ones that deny that the contrarians are currently reaching fringe levels want to make that leap because they want to say that the opponents are the ones godwinizing the discussion. Of course that only works by denying 🙂 that the word existed before the Nazis came into the historical picture. > **[Definition of DENIER](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denier)** > > one who denies… See the full definition > [@](#): > > - Main Entry: 1 de·ni·er > - Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)r, dē-\ > - Function: noun > - Date: **15th century** > > : one who denies . ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/36 "2009-08-19T23:51:08Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The [solar cycle](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/4.html) looks set to continue its rather undramatic, steady oscillation around 1366 Wm[sup]-2[/sup] (give or take 1 Wm[sup]-2[/sup]) for a while yet. How many more years of warming would convince you, personally, that said warming _was_ due to the extra IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere? I don’t know. I’m not convinced by any current theory. We know that the oceans can act as a massive heat sink that can take years to change, so a considerable delay is to be expected. I do not advocate suspending research pending falsification of the solar theory.Anyway, you’re missing my point, so I’ll repeat it: further warming while there’s a continued lack of sunspots will falsify this theory. I would suggest that it will take at least 1 11-year cycle. Note that a lack of warming with no sunspots will not confirm the theory either - only the reverse holds. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/37 "2009-08-20T00:03:42Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t know. I’m not convinced by any current theory. We know that the oceans can act as a massive heat sink that can take years to change, so a considerable delay is to be expected. I do not advocate suspending research pending falsification of the solar theory.Anyway, you’re missing my point, so I’ll repeat it: further warming while there’s a continued lack of sunspots will falsify this theory. I would suggest that it will take at least 1 11-year cycle. Note that a lack of warming with no sunspots will not confirm the theory either - only the reverse holds. What I have seen is that skeptics like Martin Durkin have acted dishonestly when telling people that they have evidence of the solar activity (sunspots) driving the current warming. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. > > However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” > > In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can’t be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun’s close correlation with the Earth’s temperature in the past also establishes it’s blamelessness for global warming today. So, since 1975. That is indeed more than 11 years. [Solar Schmolar!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20) ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/38 "2009-08-20T00:58:20Z")
If you folks want data that IMO is least likely to be wrong measurement wise, look for data on permafrost temperature profiles. Look for among other names studying this Dr. Osterkamp (sp?), at University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Of course if global warming models predict cooling in permafrost regions, your in trouble 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/39 "2009-08-20T06:26:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, since 1975. > > That is indeed more than 11 years. No. There’ve been a normal number of sunspots. Now there aren’t. We’ll have to wait and see what effect this has. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2009, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391/40 "2009-08-20T07:05:17Z")
> [@intention](#): > > PS - as has been repeatedly pointed out, “Deniers” is an insult. It is a pathetic, puerile attempt to equate people who happen to disagree with you with people who deny the Holocaust. Oh, this is just crap. And yes, there is a majority consensus amongst climate scientists, we don’t really need to smack that one down again, do we? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-co2-concentration-graph-guesses-solicited-for-its-future-shape-and-consequences/506391.md?page=3)