@117 Robert Wagner
As I said, no, I’m not trying to refute your chart. I accept it. What ought to concern you is this: Scientists who believe that AGW is real probably accept it, too. It is not true that it shows “no relationship between temp and CO2.” It does show a relationship. I hesitate to guess the coefficient of correlation, but it would surprise me to find that it was not pretty high. The chart might be grounds for rejecting AGW, but you don’t know that, and neither do I. No one claims that the temperature should move in lockstep with CO2, never mind claiming that it should move in lockstep over hundreds of millions of years in which the continents move, solar irradiance changes, and the earth’s orbit and axial tilt changes.
I don’t think you know, and I certainly don’t know, whether all the temperatures in the chart are global means or whether some of them are merely whatever Scotese could glean from limited geographical areas. Until 200-300 million years ago, compared with today, a greater amount of land was near the equator, and the continents were far more clumped together.
I don’t like to be defending AGW, but you’re forcing me to it, with your idea about volcanoes and now with this chart.
Bill
