CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages

[snip – no valid email address given, rw.org does not exist, no further posts from you since you keep changing names, email address, none of which appear valid. You have been banned, -Anthony]

I’m having difficulty understanding the relationship of CO2 and temp in Fig 2. You start out saying that CO2 lags temp but it seems to me that Fig 2 shows just the reverse – CO2 leading temp. What am I missing?
Otherwise, I completely agree with your analysis.
Bill

The Vostok cores and subsequent papers coming from that important work provide a much needed interpretation of the long term climate. They are so much more valuable and relevant than the various Hansen, Mann, and other IPCC models that are based on a relatively small data set. They provide a picture back in climate time that the AGWers would rather not have come to the attention of the general public and their politicians.
Frank Lansner’s post provides a concise interpretation of the Vostok data and valuable weapon in the fight against climate ignorance. It’s the type of thing AGWers would rather ignore than confront. This time around, I’d like to see the AGW supporters address the substance of the posted message rather than pick at the messenger.

This is a great analysis!
One question … how was Graph 2 created? It is at the heart of the presentation, so I would like to understand it.

Very interesting piece – thank you. Fig. 5 was especially illuminating for me.

Frank Lansner says; “So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.”
Does this imply that the logarithmic “sensitivity” curve has reached the near horizontal at these levels?

“I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling.”
I concur, it reliably shows changes in the direction of change, nothing else.

P Folkens:
Thanks. I will see what I can find on Vostok data analysis that is as straightforward as Frank’s.

I have posted here before about Ernst Beck. Frank has had his disagreement with him but seems to think he has some valid points (see the link at the very end of Franks post.
Personally I think the ice core co2 levels are contradictory. If they show a constant 280ppm what has been the driver for the numerous periods of warmth and cold the earth has experienced- many captured on instrumental records?
I originally joined this forum by posting a number of graphs showing the measurements of becks data against the actual temperatures from Hadley CET back to 1660. This appeared to show that co2 could only have something to do with temperature changes if there were similar levels of co2 to today in our recent past, which Becks data appears to show.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck … hadley.jpg
The graph is repeated above-the blue line is man made co2 since 1750. The green dots are Becks data. THe red line hadley CET to 1660-unadjusted or smoothed. Most of the action related to co2 -according to the readings-seems to occur between 270 and 350ppm.
Some people believe that 90% of co2 has a life of around 50 years and the remaining 10% stays around for much longer. Other people estimate around 5 years to several hundred (the IPCC) with Susan Solomons apparently believing it is there for 10,000 years. This ‘decomposition’ is not shown on the graph as it would be impossible tro represent it accurately on this scale.
As I say, Frank Lansner has had his disagreements with Ernst Beck in the past but essentially there appear to be a large number of contradictions if we accept co2 at a constant 280ppm. Either the ice cores are wrong, Mauna Loa readings are wrong or co2 is not the major driver it is believed to be.
TonyB

MY post 09 40 43
Lets try that link again to Becks data
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
The first goes to an excel spread sheet the second to a jpeg of the same information.
TonyB

Thank you Frank and Anthony, this is very timely as I have just been looking for graphics that show the time lag. There are a good view papers that estimate it at 600-800 years – but the graph of original data doesn’t show it very clearly, except for one of the peaks, obviously because of the long timeline of hundreds of thousands of years. Mr Gore was able to use this graph in his film without drawing attention to the fine gap and its implications!
I guess Leif will have something to say about the possibility of much longer spotless sun periods – but these should show up in the be-10 profiles and I am not sure they do. Perhaps others could look at this too.
We in the UK already had a harbinger of colder times – a lovely Snowy Owl from Iceland or Greenland in Cornwall for a long stay, but we have also just received a visit from an Ivory Gull in the Hebrides. And another Arctic high pressure system is developing! If someone tells me how, I will send a photo of the owl!

Great work.
Thanks

Re: Luis Dias comment 09:39:26:
The fact that CO2 peaks at the same time as temperature is entirely consistent with temperature being a driver. There is no consistency there, give it some thought.
As far as “Many things in this post are merely asserted and unproven. Others, simply ignored.” – of the only two points you bring up, only the second has any merit…
I think this is a valid and elegantly simple argument against CO2 as a driver – at least on the upswing. I do agree that higher concentration could have greater effect (although with logarithmic importance seemingly proven elsewhere), and that we have no indication from this work that CO2 does not slow the cooling process.

Related to R Jaggar’s question…
Much depends on the curve at which CO2 level generates greenhouse effect. “Pushing on a spring” is a good analogy for rising CO2 because as you compress the spring more and more, it requires greater force to move the spring an equivalent distance — and at some point the spring is fully compressed and more force will not move it. We say there is a “logarithmic” response of CO2 and greenhouse effect. At some point, more CO2 will have little further effect because the it has reached a saturation point.
How much argument is there on this saturation level? We certainly hear little to nothing about it in the MSMM (mainstream moron media). I want to know more. How were current models of this saturation effect derived? Are they mathematical, or is there some way to actually measure the slope of the “dose-response” curve?
On what basis does the author of this piece conclude that maximum warming effect of CO2 occurs @ 250-280ppm? Is it a guess based on his graph? If maximum warming effect is in this range, the entire argument of AGW as it relates to CO2 is moot if we are long past the maximum warming effect.

If anyone gets the opportunity to read some of the fascinating science on this subject, it’s worth exploring the relationship between ice core temperature proxies and CO2 levels in more detail.
For example, while it seems quite well established that the CO2 rise in the Vostock core lags the temperature rise by 800 (+/- quite a bit) years, the evidence indicates that the CO2 rise leads the warming in the tropics and certainly in Greenland (Greenland cores have quite high temporal resolution but don’t go back as far as Antarctic ones):
e.g.:
Caillon, N et al. (2003) Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across termination III. Science 299, 1728-1731
L. Stott et al. (2007) Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming. Science 318, 435 – 438.
Of course the ice age cycles are driven by the slow, slow, slow variations in the orbital properties of the Earth (Milankovitch cycles). Deglaciation is likely driven by enhanced Spring insolation in the deep Southern hemisphere which results in very slow warming, and as the Southern Ocean ice melts and the oceans start to warm, CO2 is released (thus the lag represented in the Vostock cores). The enhanced CO2 effectively enhances and transmits the deep Southern warming to the Northern latitudes. Thus the temperature rise in Greenland cores follows the Milankovitch-induced rise in CO2 that lags warming in the Antarctic cores…

The derivative of the data would be a more useful thing to graph.
Agree.

Great, great work. The Vostock ice core graph tells us 2 things very clearly. 1. The normal case is the climate is and allway will be changeing. 2. Over the last 500’000 years there where only 10’000 years (2%) what Al Gore says the climate should be!
Regards from the cold snowy Swiss mountains. Freddie

The people who have the raw data from these ice cores, say the correlation coefficient is highest when the temperature data is delayed 800 years; and this is the origin of the statement that the temperature leads the CO2 by 800 years.
But this isn’t the whole story. If you look carefully at the graphs above you will see two things that are omitted from this simple picture.
1/ The rising edges are close together than the falling edges. So a separate correlation of rising data and falling data (major excursions) would show that the rising edges correlate better at less than 800 years delar, while the falling edges correlate better at more than 800 years delay.
2/ On the rising edges, the CO2 edge is about the same steepness as the temperature edge; but on the falling edges, the CO2 fall timing is much slower than the temperature fall timing.
Note that the amplitude of the CO2 changes (in this data) is about 150 ppm, which is of the same order as the present rising CO2 data from Mauna Loa; but the temperature changes are about 8 deg C, which is considreably more temperature change than occurred during the Mediaeval warm period; which just happens to be 800 years before the present Mauna Loa CO2 rise.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that the reconstructed history of the temperature during the MWP is a global mean.
There is NOTHING at all global about these Vostok Ice Cores. The entombed temperature record is a record of temperatures at the coldest known place on earth, which can get doen to -90 C, and where temperature excursions of tens of degrees C are common.
At Vostok Temperatures, the atmosphere has to be essentially devoid of water vapor or water in any form, and quite often it can be devoid of CO2 as well, with CO2 ice on the ground.
So one lesson we should learn from all of this, is that Vostok Station is not at all representative of global climate, and we shouldn’t be using these data to imply any global behavior.
Another consequence of the extreme low temperatures at Vostok, and the consequent virtual absence of water in the atmosphere, is that CO2 (and ozone) are the only GHGs of any consequence in that atmosphere, in which case, the effect of CO2 is exaggerated compared to global typical atmospheres where much of the IR spectrum that CO2 can absorb, is already absorbed by water vapor.
No matter how they try to argue it, any possible kind of (physical) amplification has to be delayed by the propagation delay of the amplification process. No physical causal relationship, can have a negative propagation delay; the output of the process, always has to follow the input to that process, otherwise we would have what Analog engineers describe as the “guesser circuit”
So the notion that a CO2 triggered temperature excursion (either up or down), can then sudeenly switch and have the CO2 take over as driver, is sheer nonsense.
And if such processes were possible; in the global sense, who needs the CO2, because water vapor by itself is perfectly capable of starting a temperature excursion, without any coaxing from CO2.
The argument that feedback either from ocean outgassing of CO2 or evaporation of water enhances CO2 induced warming; is tantamount to grabbing hold of the branch of a tree, while you and the tree are falling down a cliff.
In my view, the incontrovertible delay of the Vostok CO2 response to the local temperature changes, is a fatal blow to the claim of CO2 caused global climate change.
And no; I do not claim that CO2 does not intercept earth surface thermal radiation, and warm the surface and the atmosphere (at all). The Physics is very real; but if you don’t properly allow for the evaporative response to surface warming, and the negative feedback due to clouds, then you cannot claim to be modeling this planet on which we live.
George

Jim Steele’s post notes that in the Vostok data, when CO2 levels are high, temperature plunges still occur, which suggests strongly that CO2 isn’t an important driver of warming (it can’t keep the planet warm when other factors are at work).
We see the same process over tens of millions of years in the excellent graph, entitled “Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time,” at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. It is based on R.A. Berner’s CO2 estimates and C.R. Scotese’s estimates of temperature.
In this graph, over the past 120 million years or so, temperatures remain high while CO2 steadily plunges. Clearly, both in the Vostok cores of the past 500,000 years and over much longer periods of time, the relationship of CO2 and temperature is tenuous. Why the AGWers are incapable of seeing this is a mystery.

“” Luis Dias (10:48:48) :
The derivative of the data would be a more useful thing to graph.
Agree. “”
Differentiation always increases the noise to signal ratio. If climate is the integral of weather, then the derivative of climate is simply weather, and we already know that weather does not represent climate.

“” Frank Perdicaro (10:12:49) :
<>
The mathematics here end up being a lovely non-Cartesian,
non-Euclidean sinusoidal geometry. You can take advantage of commutativity and associativity of the data, and the graph falls right out
of the data. The asymmetry of the data when plotted on a sinusoidal
geometry is EXACTLY consistent with elliptical orbits. If you apply
Kepler’s laws and Occam’s Razor, variations in CO2 here on earth
are associated with the sun’s orbit in the galaxy. “”
Frank, have you considered calling up George Noori to speak to him about this on his “Coast-to-Coast AM” late night radio talk show ? You’d be a smash hit with his audience.

That CO2 is a relatively weak player is evident from any reasonable examination of the geologic record. In Miocene times the climate was about 10°F warmer than it is today and CO2 concentration was significantly less, counter to goracle / Mannian assumptions. Miocene warmth must have resulted from mechanisms other than any excess CO2 in the atmosphere. During the Pleistocene, the evidence indicates CO2 increased and was accompanied by global cooling. In no time scale, decadal, century, milenial or larger is there any evidence that CO2 has played a significant role . It’s only in GCM-Nintendo land that CO2 drives climate. Frank’s analysis is a welcome contribution.

Luis: “Allegedly, CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, but in Fig.2 we see temperature peaking exactly the same time that CO2 peaks. This is also problematic:”
Not really problematic. First, this is a study of trends…not peaks. Even so, looking at Fig. 5, (where he’s trying to show CO2 leading temperature) the temperature drops before CO2. Now, do this: Print one of the graphs, and grab a pencil. (this isn’t very scientific, but it will make the point) Use the pencil and smooth out the peaks, and you’ll see that CO2 peaks after the temperature.

The Vostok data has been frequently misrepresented as “proof” that rising atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. But the inconvenient fact is the data shows first it gets warm, then CO2 goes up. Future CO2 levels can’t cause warming.
Then we’re told CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it must be contributing to the global warming. Fair enough (it’s possible), but doesn’t this mean CO2 is not causing the warming? Isn’t that the crux of the matter — stop man-made CO2 emissions in order to save the planet from some future run-away climate catastrophe? If CO2 is not causing the warming, then why do we need to control it?
The fallback position is always CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be affecting climate somehow. This is a valid, but unproven, hypothesis. the climate just isn’t that simple, nor is CO2 a powerful greenhouse gas. You can’t discard the Vostok data without also discarding the entire AGW GHG hypothesis along with it.

Few of us are familiar enough wih the literature on this topic to really judge whether the assumptions hold and the analysis is new and valid. It this is a valid study, it should be submitted to a scientific journal for peer review.

Figure 2 looks like the key to me – has this been independently verified?

Much has been said about the difference in the slope of CO2, i.e. a sharp rise versus a delayed fall. I am no expert, but we might intuitively expect this due to biological activity. CO2 rise would be caused by off-gassing as temperature increased, which is a fairly fast process. This increased CO2 also stimulates the biosphere, which stores CO2 through primary production. This stored CO2 would release more slowly through decomposition, and uptake of CO2 by plants would slow gradually due to the changing climate. I wonder if anyone can confirm this mechanism?

Bravo, Frank, on an astute analysis!
My first reaction upon seeing the first graph is to notice how infrequently the temperature on earth is this warm, and to realize that this recent warm period is why humanity has thrived.
My second reaction: fear and trembling for those who will be living when the temperature drops so precipitously in the future. I know that I won’t be around, but really. Brrrrr.

Both the lag time from temperature change to CO2 change and the shape of the curves suggest that temperature is driving CO2.
As well understood and mentioned on this thread, CO2 drives temperature in a logarithmic relationship. However, when temperature drives CO2 (into/out of the oceans), the relationship is linear.
If CO2 is driving temperature, then on a graph of CO2 and temperature vs. time, the temperature and CO2 curves should be parallel when CO2 is graphed on a log scale and temperature on a linear scale.
If temperature is driving CO2, than on a graph of CO2 and temperature vs. time, the temperature and CO2 curves should be in parallel when CO2 is graphed on a linear scale and temperature on a linear scale.
Examine figure 2, which is a graph on linear scale of both CO2 and temperature. Since the curves are about parallel during the rise of CO2 and temperature, I must conclude that the temperature is driving the CO2 at that time.

“Bill D (11:44:33) :
Few of us are familiar enough wih the literature on this topic to really judge whether the assumptions hold and the analysis is new and valid. It this is a valid study, it should be submitted to a scientific journal for peer review.”
If it’s to pass peer review, then it must be expanded to include the effects of ice sheet size and atmospheric methane concentration. In fact, if all three are considered, then the temperature vs time graph is explained very well.
(e.g., see Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.)

Frank,
What process did you use to create Fig 2?

This is a great analysis. I like it a lot.
Just to add one more little point to the issue.
The CO2 changes are also only capable of explaining a maximum of 2.0C of the temperature change while the Vostok record shows 10C of change (5C globally with the poles showing more temperature reduction in the ice ages).
180 ppm increase to 280 ppm in CO2 is not even one doubling.
So not only is there big discrepancies in the trends, CO2 can only explain a small part of the temperature changes in the ice ages even if the maximum global warming numbers are used.

Conclusions similar to Frank’s can be advanced from another angle. The rise of CO2 from ice age to interglacial is some 280-180 = 100 ppm. The rise of CO2 due to industrialisation is some 380-280 = 100 ppm, a similar increment. Yet the temperature rise at the end of an ice age is an order of magnitude higher than the 0.6 deg C at most due to industrialisation. This argument is complicated by the non-linear logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature, but the argument still seems qualitatively sound: CO2 is not a strong driver of global temperature.

Lucy Skywalker (11:35:59) :
Why is the cooling period slower??? I’ve had thoughts about this. The cosmos (black holes etc) often operates by (1) explosive bang (2) period of settling-down. We heat saucepans fast and they cool slowly. It’s just natural, well, it feels like that. But WHAT OH WHAT are the specific factors that slow the cooling? CO2 is about like a fat lady going out into a blizzard wearing a nightie. You need far more robust mechanisms for a delay that takes thousands of years.
…can it be caused by the Earth’s moltan core…ie like putting a very low heat back under the saucepan?
ps I have no scientific background.

Flanagan (09:55:04) :
“Not much to say about this “study”. Nobody ever said that CO2 was the only climatologic driver.
“Moreover: can you find a situation in the past where CO2 went up to 350 ppm and see what happens? This would be relevant”
Well, CO2 has averaged in the region of ten times this figure for the entire phanerozoic. It has only been as low as that at all very recently indeed. See:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide_png
For interesting commentary on the implications of this, and of major historical anomalies wherein it appears CO2 and climactic temperature are significantly disconnected, see:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMPP23E..01F
So, Flanagan, simply put, apart from very recent history indeed, it is rather difficult to find a situation in the past where CO2 was BELOW 350ppm!

“Pushing on a spring” is a good analogy for rising CO2 because as you compress the spring more and more, it requires greater force to move the spring an equivalent distance ”
Except that is not true. A 300 lb/in spring requires 300 lbs to compress 1 inch, another 300 lbs to compress another inch, another 300 lbs to compress another inch, and so on until it is completely compressed.

We seem to be looking so closely at the bark that we can’t see the forest.
Consider the first graph and notice the dramatic, periodic swings from lows to highs. This is the Pleistocene paleoclimate from deep ice ages to interglacials. The Vostok ice cores simply confirmed what we already knew from dozens of previous studies. It was my awareness of those previous studies that made me skeptical when the AGW folk began making noise back in the late 80s. Nothing Hansen, Gore, Mann, or the rest made any sense in the context of an interglacial period’s natural variation. Gore’s often-made statements of recent years being the “warmest in history” work only if history goes back no more than 750 years. The increases in CO2, indeed the increase in temperature, are miniscule in terms of the natural glacial-interglacial natural variation.
If AGW wonks want to suggest that CO2 drives the increase in temperature, then tell us the source of the CO2 that caused the the amount of CO2 to rise from 160 ppm in the depths of the glacials to the 350 ppm during the interglacials. I’ve searched the paleoanthropological record and could not find any autoparts associated with Homo erectus artifacts. In fact, there are no auto parts in any anthropological dig older than about 120 years.
To put a fine point on it, the worst case scenarios postulated by the IPCC, Hansen, Mann, and the rest are well within the natural variation of an interglacial. The worst case scenario will attain only the average in both temperature and sea levels during the past 6,000. Reducing CO2 emissions to some ridiculous percentage of 1990 levels (as the government is now seeking) will have no affect on world’s temperatures, locally or globally.
If you are afraid of CO2, stop deforestation and clean up the oceans.

@TonyB (09:40:43) :
“I have posted here before about Ernst Beck. Frank has had his disagreement with him”
Beck is presently updating and adjusting for more and more inputs. The compilation of CO2 data Beck did was obviously a very relevant thing to do. Becks data are important although the precision is sometimes not perfect. I hope Beck will go on and on making the best of these data. Its very interesting what he´s up to, and I can only support him for his truth seeking project.
@jim Steele (09:54:25) :
“It is exactly this analysis that made me a skeptic when I was teaching Global Warming to my students. “
Yes, I can follow you on that one!!
@Flanagan (09:55:04) :
“ Nobody ever said that CO2 was the only climatologic driver. “
The illustrations above not only shows that CO2 is not the reason for the big temperature changes of ice ages. They show that CO2´s role is rather small, if any.
So who cares, is that what your saying? Just let the big companies fill up the underground with CO2 under pressure even though CO2 has little if any effect? In a time of crisis? Using endless dollars on CO2? – because as you say, there are probably other climatologic drivers? That’s not a convincing argument to focus on CO2, is it?
@Ellie in Belfast (10:10:55) :
“I can’t wait to try this on a few wavering friends.”
Thankyou thankyou, you make my day!!

Daniel Mayes (12:09:49) :

The idea that the changing CO2 capacity of oceans as they warm and cool explains much of the variability in atmospheric CO2 seen in the ice core data is straightforward enough. What processes have been proposed to account for these changes in atmospheric CO2 if CO2 is the cause, and not the consequence of the temperature variability?

The changes in CO2 are due to warming of the Southern oceans initially. The sinusoidal variations of the properties of the Earth’s orbit result in enhanced Spring insolation in the early stages of glacial to interglacial transitions. The deep Southern oceans slowly, slowly warm, sea ice slowly melts and the oceans begin to release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Although the Antarctic ice cores indicate that the rise in atmospheric CO2 lags warming in Antarctica, the Greenland cores indicate that Greenland warming follows the rise in CO2. So the rise in atmospheric CO2 during ice age transitions (glacial –> interglacial) is both a consequence and a cause.
Remember that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However it gets into the atmosphere it causes warming, completely independently of how it got there. If its rise in the atmosphere is the result of enhanced solar warming, then it amplifies the latter. Alternatively, the rise in CO2 can be the primary driver of warming. That has occurred in several (perhaps most or all) of the extinction events in the deep past.

Have ever noticed that their famous temperature curve suddently changes slope around the 60s and 70s. This can also be correlated to the bulk of atomic tests that were done during that time. According to some new gravity/magnetic theory, the blasts sent and magnetic pulse to the core of the earth, this pulse and changes in magnetic flow lines are also the reason for the well known shape of nuclear explosions. The theory does not say by how much the core of the planet has heated up but if you think about it, if the core heats up, it would in return heat up the ocean, thus also driving more release of CO2.
What is even more interesting is that magnetic/gravity theory could help explain sunspots and solar flares and apparently there is correlation with the perturbations in magnetic fields around the sun, caused by the planets, and solar activity, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.
see: http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/Planets_Alignment/UFT_excerpt.htm

Frank, I only have one word for you and everyone else “Bravo”

“” deepslope (11:48:29) :
George E Smith:
I have been enjoying your well-reasoned, detailed and wise contributions. Suspect that behind that is more than book learning and lab practice – an apogee perspective? “”
Well deepslope, I appreciate the sentiment; but don’t be fooled. I really don’t know didley about what I regard as climate; which is how what we coloquially think of as climate, varies over the globe. Why is Australia so dry ? How did the Sahara becoem desertified? How the hell does the PDO work. I know nowt about such stuff; but I’m sure there are people who do.
so I pretty much have to constrain myself to the bigger picture question:- “Is planet earth radiating the right amount of thermal electromagnetic radiation to keep the surface temperatures in a comfortable range.”
That’s pretty much pure Physics, and mostly thermodynamics; and that stuff I do know.
In addition, I have no axe to grind; I am Teflon coated. I don’t work for any energy, or other resource industry company; I don’t invest in their stocks, unless my totally blind IRA mutual funds do so without my knowledge or direction. And I don’t get so much as a brass Razoo in grant money to do any research on any of this, from either government or other institutional money bags.
So all I care about, is that we get the science correct; and that we do that before a bunch of damned fools do some actual real damage to this planet; its environment, and its economic ability to support at least the population we have on earth today, at a reasonable level. Naturally, I would wish we had fewer people, and I wish we had much fewer really poor people; and for sure it is going to get a heck of a lot worse than it is, if we don’t put the CO2 genii back in the bottle.
My bottom line belief, which I am not presently able to prove beyond doubt, is that so long as the earth has its oceans, we cannot change the temperature either up or down, even if we wanted to. And if we could; where would we set it ? The hydrologic cycle of evaporation, cloud formation, and precipitation is in total feedback control of the average global temperatures. Things like CO2 and Svensmark’s Cosmic rays, are not drivers of the climate, but they do contribute, in that CO2 can augment water vapor absorption of thermal radiation, and Svensmark’s cosmic rays, can affect the ease of cloud formation, and more importantly where clouds form, and so modify the cloud regulation process.
I think the mistake people are making with regard to Svensmark, is that they are either trying to prove that this is what drives the climate; or that this has nothing to do with the climate, and I don’t think he ever said anything like that. But I think it is an important cause of variation in climate, that is linked to the sun behavior, and gives the sun more effect than just the 0.1% P-P change in the solar constant. Leif seems to say the sun is not a big driver; but it’s offspring are having bigger effects than it has directly. The total energy linkages between sun and earth are somewhat more than a simple EM radiation beam.
George

Remember that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I also remember that water vapor is a 20X more effective greenhouse gas and no one is trying to do a darn thing about it.

My first post and slight OT, but if this report is to be believed, could this explain how elevated CO2 does the dirty on the ecosystem?

E.M.Smith (13:57:14)
Gribbin and Gribbin is a very nice book. But it is a book by science populizers describing 10 year old and more science from a time before much of the polar ice core data was available or had been analyzed in detail.
Your comment:
Note that the Southern Hemisphere is similarly irrelevant to the ice age cycle since it is always cold enough for snow to stay frozen. It just doesn’t change enough to matter.
…is an erroneous conclusion based on a false premise. During the glacial period of the ice age cycles, sea surface ice obviously extends extensively from the Antarctic towards the lower latitudes of the Southern hemisphere. Enhanced insolation in the Spring/Summer, if this forcing is persistent over hundreds of years, will cause this sea ice to retreat. The reduction in albedo enhances sea surface warming. Eventually the Southern oceans will lose their ice cover, warm and begin to release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Since you’re quoting the very nice (but somewhat outdated) book by the Gribbins, I’ll quote from some more recent science:
L. Stott et al. (2007) Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming. Science 318, 435-438.
The rise in Southern Ocean temperatures coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice and high-elevation glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (36, 37). The explanation for the early warming in the Southern Hemisphere could involve increasing springtime solar insolation, which is well correlated with the retreat of sea ice and with the history of sea-salt accumulation in the Antarctic Dome C ice core (fig. S5). We suggest that the trigger for the initial deglacial warming around Antarctica was the change in solar insolation over the Southern Ocean during the austral spring that influenced the retreat of the sea ice (38). Retreating sea ice would have led to enhanced Ekman transport in the Southern Ocean and decreased stratification due to stronger air-sea fluxes.
(n.b. “Ekman transport” is a phenomenon promoting mixing of ocean layers and enhances CO2 efflux from the deep oceans as a result of surface warming…)
It’s increasingly well established that deglaciation is driven by insolation changes in the deep Southern hemisphere, and that the resulting rise in CO2 due to warming-induced efflux from the Southern oceans, amplifies the Milankovitch warming and promotes Northern hemisphere warming. That accounts for the observation that the CO2 rise, which follows warming in Antarctic cores, precedes warming in the Greenland cores.

This is a brave attempt by Frank but is basically an intensely simplistic argument with no grasp of the complexities involved. Frank has been guilty of this previously with his very strong assertion that because the SOI was high back in September then a La Nina was inevitable. I did point out to him there were other factors involved and that these were indicating a la Nina was a low probability event. He was however still convinced that this one particular fact meant that a La Nina was inevitable. We now know he was wrong then and I’m afraid he is once again very wrong here.
He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.

Thanks for the analysis Frank and a rejoiner to Luis Dias’ comment that there can be sharp falls in some heating/cooling events and this refutes Frank’s argument.
What often is confused is that heat and temperature are two different things, heat being a quantity and temperature being a level. What Frank was pointing out was a greater amount of heat is transferred to the ocean with longer periods of temperature rise therefore longer periods of cooling are needed for the heat to be released and therfore the temperature to fall. This is a classic example of hysteresis and can be observed in many natural phenomena. The assymetry is indeed intriguing.
Frank presents a hypothesis on why heat can enter the oceans more quickly than it can be released. Although not explicity stated I think he is saying that the mixing delay is the key, with less mixing the hot water (containing much heat per volume of water) is only at surface and it’s higher temperature leads to rapid heat loss through evaporation of water and radiance. However, if there is more time to achieve greater mixing the averaged temperature is lower even though more total heat may be absorbed (because of the greter water volume involved). Because it is a lower temperature there is both a slower heat loss and this as well as the larger amount of total heat contained means it takes longer.
Makes sense to me Frank.

Frank Lansner’s paper elegantly demonstrates the relationship between CO2 and temperature however without detracting from the overall theme of the paper I would like to point out that the assumption has been made that the ice core sample CO2 data is accurate. There are many eminent scientists in this field who challenge the accuracy of this data. Some of the these are Prof. Jaworowski, who was a pioneer in this field, J.J.Drake et. al.
Basically the air trapped in the snow becomes compressed as the build up occurs and the air goes into solution with the pressure build up. Since the solubilities are different the rate of absorption occurs at different rates for different gasses. At a certain depth there are no “air” bubbles left contrary to the IPCC’s numerous declarations. Once in solution the CO2 migrates or combines with the ice crystals to form calthrates. When the ice core is drilled and brought to the surface the pressure is released and the gasses come out of solution however the reconstituted gas is not the same as the original air.
Page 446 of the IPCC 4AR has the following interesting text, “ Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range 180 to 300 ppm over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 650kyr …. The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research.”
The answer to this is simple the level never got to 180 ppm if it had for the period of time shown on the ice core charts the plant life on the planet would have been decimated and most animals would have starved, basically plants stop growing at 200 ppm. Stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do so the analysis is still valid.

@P2O2 (15:15:12) :
I would add a third question:
3) When the Earth cools the evaporation decreases and the oceans should freeze. In the meantime, the ice grows over the land as well. Does it mean there must be areas of increased evaporation to push the gigantic amount of water onto the land?
Simply speaking I put the CO2 issue aside from any “global” conciderations. Isn’t the CO2 issue a dead end street in the climate disputes?

foinavon (15:15:46) :
It’s increasingly well established that deglaciation is driven by insolation changes in the deep Southern hemisphere, and that the resulting rise in CO2 due to warming-induced efflux from the Southern oceans, amplifies the Milankovitch warming and promotes Northern hemisphere warming. That accounts for the observation that the CO2 rise, which follows warming in Antarctic cores, precedes warming in the Greenland cores.
And then again
” The temporal coincidence of glacial epochs on the Earth and Mars during the Quaternary and latest Amazonian would suggest a coupled system linking both [Sagan, C., Young, A.T., 1973. Nature 243, 459″

foinavon (14:31:43) :
The warming during the glacial to interglacial transition was very, very, very slow (around 5 oC of warming during 5000 years, for example during the last glacial interglacial transition 15000-10000 years ago). So we’re warming around 15-20 times faster than that now.
Remember that the ice cores have a heavily smoothed signal due to CO2 diffusion and other factors in the ice. We know that heating and cooling rates similar to those of today’s more precise measurements have to have been present in the recent past, due to the fact we can find tree stumps in the arctic, LIA, MWP, etc. Real data explaining the exact rates is not available owing to the recent invention of the thermometer (and language), but plenty of evidence exists to surmise peaks and valleys in the recent past not much different from today’s cycles. One only needs to look at the last 150 years of real data to see these steep variations in both directions. So to argue that high rates of change in either direction didn’t exist before doesn’t make much sense, we just can’t see the signal due to the gaussian filter effects present in the ice core data.
The original signal can’t be put back into the data, but it is certainly no stretch of logic to assume that the climate had short term variations much like the present, on top of the long term trends you see, since many of the same drivers were present (ocean cycles, solar, whatever). If the data could be somehow recovered and shown in the charts above, it would simply be overlayed on top and appear as noise on top of the signal you see (and we would probably filter it out again so we can see it easier for this presentation).
There is no evidence of a flat temperature profile for any length of time anywhere on earth (except maybe the center). If you have found one, it is reasonably safe to assume it either suffers from a filtering effect, or it is a Mann made signal :-).

Thank you, Frank for pointing out some of the benefits of increased CO2. I had an aquarium with a simple CO2 bubbler which was the fad back then, and the plant growth was indeed lush. So I have a residual positive feeling toward CO2. The AGW side never consider this and it has always made me feel uncomfortable since a realistic cost/benefit analysis of increasing CO2 would have to include the positive aspects along with the negatives. Where is this analysis?
Frank’s approach and other common sense empirical approaches such as “Cold Facts on Global Warming” by T.J. Nelson, lead me to believe that a lot of money has been wasted trying to forecast scenarios that are impossible to begin with. Nelson calculates a maximum possible increase of less than 2 degrees at CO2 doubling mainly due to the logarithmic nature of CO2 wavelength absorption. He also points out that if CO2 concentrations continue to increase along the straight line trend they are on now since 1975, doubling will occur in 2250. Not exactly around the corner. Frank introduces the increasing biosphere as another negative driver to keep CO2 increase on or below that trend.

Timbrom, very simple answer … It does not. CO2 radiative forcing flattens out at about 50 ppm thereafter it has no effect on temperature reference Dr. John Nichol’s paper which in my humble opinion is the best analysis using the fundamental laws of radiation physics. On the other hand increasing CO2 accelerates the growth rate of all green plants hence to total hypocrisy of reducing CO2 is “going green” If the atmosphere ever got to 1000 ppm CO2 the productivity of the worlds agriculture would be doubled with no effect on temperature, just ask a greenhouse operator, some of them spend a lot of money installing CO2 enrichment equipment.

E.M.Smith (14:25)
“The easy suspect would be plants. As the ice age sets in, lots of plants die. Decay leads to CO2 (until the plants remains are sequestered under glaciers)
I also considered that, but plant decay is a temperature-sensitive rate process. If it is cold enough for substantial plant die-off, perhaps it is cold enough to supress the plant decay organisms, too. OTOH, there may be increases and decreases in temperature after plant die-off, so maybe the decay organisms do their work during the brief warm episodes.
re city water usage and droughts
We already have a few water issues in the cities related to the drought. Voluntary conservation measures are urged on the populace, and a citizen “water police” was authorized to report water wasters (washing the car with a free-running hose, overwatering the lawn, etc). Still, these are nothing like we should have, such as bans on washing cars, bans on washing driveways and sidewalks, and watering lawns only on alternate days.
But I agree with your statement that agriculture will take the hit. Domestic use of water is the first priority, farming is around last priority. Industrial and commercial use are somewhere in the middle, and are decided case by case.
re The Wrath of Grapes *grin*
Brother, can you spare a Watt? to charge up their e-car on the cross-country trip. Marvelous…
Unfortunately, I suspect migrating Californians will get very little sympathy from those in other states…witness the Enron traders and their recorded statements as they exacerbated the power crisis a few years ago!

Rob (12:28:00) :
“If it’s to pass peer review, then it must be expanded to include the effects of ice sheet size and atmospheric methane concentration. In fact, if all three are considered, then the temperature vs time graph is explained very well.”
Red herring.
It’s irrelevant what ELSE may cause temp rise/fall, the point of Frank Lansner’s piece was that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of temperature and other effects can and do overwhelm CO2’s forcing. So identifying other factors does not refute this.

Mary Hinge (15:24:54)
“This is a brave attempt by Frank but is basically an intensely simplistic argument with no grasp of the complexities involved. Frank has been guilty of this previously with his very strong assertion that because the SOI was high back in September then a La Nina was inevitable. I did point out to him there were other factors involved and that these were indicating a la Nina was a low probability event. He was however still convinced that this one particular fact meant that a La Nina was inevitable. We now know he was wrong then and I’m afraid he is once again very wrong here.
He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.”
A rather ubiquitous problem eg.
DRAFT March 29, 2006
Spotlight on Global Temperature
by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David Lea and Martin Medina-Elizalde
Early model predictions of global warming proved accurate, the Pacific Ocean seems charged for a potential super-El Nino, and global temperature is poised to reach record, perhaps dangerous, levels….
SUPER EL NINO IN 2006-2007? We suggest that an El Nino is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a “super El Nino”, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Ninos, which were successively labeled the “El Nino of the century” as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years (Fig. 1 of Fedorov and Philander 2000). Further, we argue that global warming causes an increase of such “super El Ninos”. Our rationale is based on interpretation of dominant mechanisms in the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) phenomenon, examination of historical SST data, and observed Pacific Ocean SST anomalies in February 2006

@Mary Hinge (15:24:54) :
Oh Mary 🙂 I was afraid that I was the only sceptic blogwriter on Watts that would not have you say something bad about me. I would not feel that I had been on Watts without a little dose Mary Hinge! Thanks.
Then this La Nina talk of yours: Hmm as far as I remember, you thought there would be an El Nino in dec 2008? I said La Nina… and we got La Nina… not huge, but…?? And NOAA predicted moderate La Nina..
Well if this is “what you got on my person”, i suppose it could be worse :-))
You write: “He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.”
Anyways, You write as though you have learned much. Then enlighten us, what is it you actually think of the subject? How about commenting the subject also?

The changes in CO2 concentration is better explained through absorption by the oceans rather than plants.
A cooler ocean absorbs more CO2 and to change the numbers by 100 ppm, the deep oceans needs to be fully in play as well since the surface does not have enough volume to account for the change.
For the deep ocean to become fully in play, an entire over-turning of the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation is required which just happens to take about 800 to 1000 years – just the right timeline.
When CO2 drops to 200 ppm and 180 ppm, grasses become the dominant plant species since they can still grow efficiently at these levels while most bushy plants and trees can’t. During the ice ages, the giant grass herbivores become the dominant species as well not surprisingly. So there is still vegetation processes going on during the deep ice ages (just not under the ice of course).

@Bob Dennis (15:34:12) :
I cut out a part of the Article as it was too speculative.
I think that if the earth “only” akkumulated warmth in the oceans, its still a little hard to explain 20-25.000 years of cooling. Oceans take 1000-1500 years to mix. So here is the uncut pure speculation part I believe its ok to put it in a blog entry, and many seems to talk about these things today:
Heres some interesting info.
Geomagnetic field follows sunspot number:
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J0713.pdf
Magma melting Greenland Ice:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
Many more ocean volcanoes than imagined:
http://www.scienceupdate.com/show.php?date=20070906
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
More earthquake when earth is warmer:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml
Bigger warming from the depth than expected:
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110976
One hypothesis: Due to these findings among others, I find it rather likely that it the suns magnetic field causes slight friction of the Fe containing mantle under the earths crust. This friction would cause heat. This way the sun might also generate heat from below the surface of earth. If so, we might see higher volcanic activity in periods with high solar activity, and thus it is even easier to explain why CO2 compared to temperature is raising faster than it drops.
If so, then it is not only the earth oceans that are heated up in warmer periods, it is also in some regions layers of rock. It would take long time to cool down, and the shape of the Antarctic temperature data (Fast rising temperature, slower cooling) seems to fit well. Especially one would expect that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and rock:
Fig 8.
Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth.
The differences in cooling periods now have a logical explanation. The differences in cooling periods does not in any way support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. CO2 should have same effect on all cooling phases.
Heat from under the earths surface – under the oceans – will also explain how oceans can expand even though we see a build up of ice in the Antarctic: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/
@KlausB (16:00:43) :
Hi Klaus, perhaps find me at http://www.klimadebat.dk ?
K.R. Frank

barry moore (16:51:29) :
Nope, I know about partial pressures… I was imagining just such a device that could drill in a highly pressurized condition and contain the ice in that state, with the sample being released in lab conditions later. The sample would be small and would probably be a one-shot per core since the entire thing would outgas as soon as the pressure is released, but, it still might be useful if such an apparatus could be made. But imagining one and designing such a device I suppose is an entirely different matter… Good info to have if you could really capture the ice without so many of the sampling errors that plague the science… I can’t remember the reference, but there are some great articles on the many obstacles to getting reliable ice core data – even then it’s iffy. There is probably a good physical reason why nobody has captured much ice with high CO2 levels, yet…

Mary Hinge (15:24:54) :
This is a brave attempt by Frank but is basically an intensely simplistic argument with no grasp of the complexities involved. …. He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.
————
Well, Geez. I normally look past these kinds of comments, but I’ll ask on the off chance that there’s something more here. I don’t mind listening to what anyone has to say, as long as it’s more than name calling.
OK – so can you, Mary, give me one other dimension to consider that would disrupt the logic in Frank’s post so that his discussion becomes less meaningful? Seriously – people worried about CO2 have little evidence of a CO2 generated problem other than this ice core data and overly simplistic climate models. I guess I find it strange that the only actual evidence used in Gore’s movie to prove that CO2 causes devistation is now considered way too simple minded to be of any value whatsoever.

Michael D Smith (15:58:40)
That’s a fair point. There’s no doubt that the ice core data is smoothed in the time domain due to the diffusion of air during the process of “sealing off” of the trapped air in cores. So the air in cores is always a bit younger than the ice that encloses it and the composition of the air is smoothed over significant periods.
However we can make some conclusions about the nature of smoothing. We know that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are pretty constant over decades. After all we’ve got a large amount of very detailed CO2 data for over 50 years. We can observe smooth rises due to the massive release of our emissions into the atmosphere. But the CO2 levels simply don’t jump around up and down willy-nilly. We can see that they don’t since we’ve been monitoring them for many decades! And there’s no physical mechanism that might give rise to massive jumps or drops of CO2 over short periods other than terrestrial impacts into limestone-rich deposits (like the end-Cretaceous impact) or truly awesome forest fires and such-like…
So the fact the we can look at the ice cores and observe a very regular glacial-interglacial-glacial transition from close to 180-270-180 ppm back and forth gives us confidence that we’re monitoring real transitions in atmospheric CO2. We’e got rather high resolution cores for the past 2000 years (Law Dome) that again indicate that CO2 levels don’t jump around much at all.
How about the temperature profile? I’m not sure I agree with you that temperatures rise that much up and down due to natural variation without very significant extraneous forcing. The paleoproxy data, averaged globally or hemispherically, over the last 1000-1500 years before the early 20th century indicate otherwise.
However one swings it, glacial-interglacial transitions over the last few cycles covering 350,000 years gives a rather consistent set of data showing very, very slow temperature rises encompassing ~ 5 oC of global warming over 5000ish years and an increase of atmospheric CO2 of 180-270 ppm over the same period. No doubt there was some significant temperature “noise” during these transitions (we can see some of these very clearly in the cores- e.g. Dansgaard–Oeschger events in the very high Northern latitudes!).

Syl (16:12:48) :
“It’s irrelevant what ELSE may cause temp rise/fall, the point of Frank Lansner’s piece was that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of temperature and other effects can and do overwhelm CO2’s forcing. So identifying other factors does not refute this.”
and Jim Steele (17:00:55) :
“The explanations for the lag time by “climate scientists” at RealClimate offer explanations that are the height of simplicity not to mention half-baked as they only addresses the period of rising temperatures.”
Guys, read the Hansen et al article (Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231). They show that CO2, though not the only driver during Milankovitch glacial/nonglacial cycles (albedo and methane are also used), precisely DOES affect climate with the same sensitivity we see during the past half century and, furthermore, the “lowering” temperatures are also explained well. So, adding 100 ppm to today’s climate does make a difference and, again, this difference is consistent with its partial role during the Pleistocene. What AGW proponents do NOT claim, despite what you say, is that CO2 is the only driver throughout geologic history.

E.M.Smith (16:41:53)
Milankovitch has not been falsified and the book is an attainable read for the average person. Truth has no expiration date and beauty of writing has no shelf life.
E.M. all of my posts on this thread are entirely consistent with our understanding of Milankovitch cycles. I can’t imagine how you could think otherwise! To be entirely clear, there is very little doubt that the Milankovitch cycles involving achingly slow changes in insolation patterns are the primary drivers of the ice age cycles. I hope we’re not going to disagree on that basic point!
I agree that the book is a fine one. I said so before. However it’s a bit out of date. The beauty of writing indeed has no shelf date (very nicely put btw!). However scientists (and science publicizers that write books) are forced to recognize that all scientific knowledge is conditional and subject to modification/reinterpretation as knowledge advances. Our understanding of glacial transitions in 2000 was simply not so well advanced as now, since much of the spectacular coring was obtained and published after that period…
..in science we should be basing our understanding on knowledge as it advances, even if we should also maintain an interest in aesthetics…

Answer me this,
How does a gas(CO2) twice as heavy as air get up into our atmosphere?
Does it go up with the water vapor or is it from stacking or filling from the ground up?
And if it’s in the water vapor(which I doubt) shouldn’t it stay in the water vapor in rain coming back down? CO2 is very water soluble
Or could it be coming in from outside our atmosphere or being created just like ozone and carbon 14 is.

Great Article….
If CO2 was a leading driver in atmospheric warming then we would expect to see a gradual warming lagging CO2 rise and then a continued rise of CO2 as the warming oceans released CO2. This would lead to a warmer atmosphere and the cycle would continue and so on …..
I think this article puts this thinking to bed once and for all !!!!

foinavon (14:06:49) :
“Although the Antarctic ice cores indicate that the rise in atmospheric CO2 lags warming in Antarctica, the Greenland cores indicate that Greenland warming follows the rise in CO2. So the rise in atmospheric CO2 during ice age transitions (glacial –> interglacial) is both a consequence and a cause.”
It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks, isn’t it? I think what you’ve pointed out is a correlation. Now what could be the lurking variable in this case? I’d say you discovered the, wait for it, ocean!. CO2 is well mixed, no? If as you say the SH oceans warmed first, then the rise in CO2 from the SH ocean mixes in the atmosphere long before the ocean heat reaches Greenland.
Thus the warming in Greenland was due to the warmer ocean even if a rise in CO2 preceded it and may have had a slight effect.

In reply to E.M. Smith and P202: Right now Earth is nearest the sun during northern winters, farthest from the sun during northern summers. If E.M. Smith’s theory is correct, we’re headed for another ice age in the near future.

Alan D. McIntire (18:49:15) :
In reply to E.M. Smith and P202: Right now Earth is nearest the sun during northern winters, farthest from the sun during northern summers. If E.M. Smith’s theory is correct, we’re headed for another ice age in the near future.
Which means that efforts to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere en masse will ultimately hasten the onset of another Ice Age. This is the part that really gets under my skin. They don’t understand the process yet, but are fully prepared to go through with the sequestration and climate cooling doomsday efforts.
Full speed ahead, boys, this ship is unsinkable !!

From a simplistic standpoint, if the 100 ppm increases in CO2 in the interglacial eras are associated with temperature increases of about 10C, then why haven’t we seen such a temperature rise in the 20th century as CO2 levels soared another 100 ppm? Why don’t the alarmists claim that rising CO2 levels are actually postponing another glacial period and should therefore be increased ? Personally, I believe that CO2 has very little to do with climate change but I wonder what Obama actually thinks when talking to Hansen and Gore on this issue.

david elder:

foinavon (14:31:43) in reply to me basically argues that CO2 can have some warming effect. I never doubted it. But the amount of CO2 warming deduced by foinavon himself is a good deal lower than the impression created by Gore in his movie. That is my point.

This is certainly true in the sense of the appearance from those graphs that Gore shows. However, when he quotes IPCC projections and such, those are done using the best estimates of the climate sensitivity…which I believe amount to CO2 being responsible for only about 1/3 of the temperature change seen between the glacials and interglacials (rising to about 40% of the temperature change once you add in the other greenhouse gases).
At least one way that the fraction of 1/3 is arrived at is by estimating the fraction of the contribution of the radiative forcing due to the change in CO2 levels between the glacial period and now to the total estimated radiative forcing between the glacial period and now. (The bulk of the rest of the forcing is understood to be from the change in albedo from the growing and shrinking ice sheets, with a smaller contribution from changes in aerosol levels in the atmosphere. The Milankovitch oscillations themselves cause very little net radiative forcing…They just change the distribution of the solar radiation hitting the earth, but this change is still very important since it is what is ultimately responsible for the ice sheets starting to grow or shrink.)
Since the radiative forcing due to CO2 levels is known to quite good accuracy, the only way to hypothesize that CO2 has much less of an effect is to come up with some big honkin’ radiative forcing that is being left out of this calculation…or is being vastly underestimated. I haven’t heard many suggestions for what such a large radiative forcing could be. (And, even then, you would still be faced with the fact that other independent empirical estimates of the climate sensitivity, such as those derived from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, also seem to favor about the same sensitivity as is obtained from looking at the change from glacial to interglacial conditions.)

Thank you so much for having a website dedicated to the truth. These past six months I have been reading have shaken me to the core. I feel like I have dropped down a rabbit hole, and I cannot believe anything the MSM tells me.
I once had a phisophy teacher state that the only valid reason to believe something is because it is true. As a child you may believe in Santa Claus. It makes you happy and you behave better. As an adult, you don’t believe in it because it is not true, even though believing in it might make you happy and better behaved.
Al Gore and others want people to believe in AGW because of the effect it has on people. It is to manipulate them into doing things they wouldn’t do otherwise. They view the net effect as good because it advances their agenda. It is the utter hatred and fear of the truth that has shocked me to the core. People do not want to know the truth, they hate you for it.
I love the truth, I would rather know the truth and find out I was wrong, then swallow a lie and believe I am right.
In the end, the truth wins, because they will huff and puff, but they cannot command the sun and the oceans to do their bidding. Thank you. Thank you for opening my eyes to world not matter how shockingly painful it has been.

Since the radiative forcing due to CO2 levels is known to quite good accuracy, the only way to hypothesize that CO2 has much less of an effect is to come up with some big honkin’ radiative forcing that is being left out of this calculation
Why, certainly. The backing off of solar wind leading to increased cosmic rays which interact in the lower atmosphere in the UV to reflect off incoming sunlight and the 1/3 shrinkage of the upper atmosphere that equates to loss of “R” value. Ask Corning Insulation rep what “R” value means. Ask a Mars scientist what the thin CO2 atmosphere of Mars can hold vs incoming. Ask a Venus scientist what the thick CO2 atmosphere of Venus can hold vs incoming.
Since we are on C02 life support.

I’ve been looking for the elusive CO2 data from the GISP2 ice core for quite a while. The files that I have seen only contain samples from cold periods during the last glacial period (lots of data points at 300ppm during cold periods). Seems rather hard to believe that no one has taken samples of CO2 from either GRIP or GISP2 during the interglacial. I would love to see a plot of temperature vs CO2. I would suspect it would be much more variable for the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere.

Here we are sending up all these probes and satellites for Earth and the rest of the planets. Why not use the other planets to help us get a firm grip on the question of solar forcing via complicated mechanisms?
Do we see changes in other planets recently?
I suspect we do. Let’s solve for Earth.

Joel “Since the radiative forcing due to CO2 levels is known to quite good accuracy”
I have been searching for over 10 years for any scientific proof to support this statement if you have it please post it.
I have read many papers by eminent scientists which prove with meticulous mathematical precision the opposite to your statement. The justification for the formula F=5.35 ln(C1/C0) which is the one I assume you are referring to is 100% empirical and if you apply this formula to the individual periods over the past 130 years when the temperatures were rising then falling you will find the formula does not even begin to past the simplist validation test.
If you wish I can post this analysis since I have done the calculations.

Joel Shore (20:14:53) :
The Milankovitch oscillations themselves cause very little net radiative forcing…They just change the distribution of the solar radiation hitting the earth
The 100,000 yr Milankovitch cycle delivers an estimated 25% reduction in TSI at its most elliptical point in the orbit cycle. And I cant help but remind everyone, this is another cycle brought to you by our friendly Jovian planets.

Re: E.M.Smith (15:32:27) :
4) WARM is GOOD. COLD is BAD.
Bravo!
Re: barry moore (15:43:55) :
I would like to point out that the assumption has been made that the ice core sample CO2 data is accurate. There are many eminent scientists in this field who challenge the accuracy of this data.
Is there a competing hypothesis for the CO2/other GHG peak in the earlier interglacial periods?
re: barry moore (16:06:12) :
It does not. CO2 radiative forcing flattens out at about 50 ppm thereafter it has no effect on temperature reference Dr. John Nichol’s paper which in my humble opinion is the best analysis using the fundamental laws of radiation physics.
Link? I have searched for and not found experimental verification of the GHG theory. I recall reading one description of a very basic experiment that claimed that the CO2 green house effect damped out very quickly with length of column. Maybe this is so basic and long ago that no one points it out. Since we are dealing with very subtle effects, I hope that the underlying physics has a strong experimental basis.
re: Rob (17:40:04) :
What AGW proponents do NOT claim, despite what you say, is that CO2 is the only driver throughout geologic history.
Do they claim that it is the primary driver? If not, what?

It’s entirely possible to have a positive feedback system where one state variable (e.g. CO2) lags another state variable (e.g. T). The fact there is a delay does not mean there is no link between them, so to use the delay as an argument against a mutual causal relationship is invalid. Presumably the driver of the system is neither of the state variables involved, so it is irrelevant whether one is triggering the other. For me the CO2/T graphs neither prove nor disprove causal relationships.
If CO2 and T do force each other, surely the positive feedback only ceases when levels are reached where the positive feedback gain ceases, and there is no more dependence. Otherwise the warming spike would continue. So if, as is argued by some, CO2 and T are mutually reinforcing coming out of an ice-age, then that is not an argument to indicate that they are currently affecting each other, because they should be in the “saturated” regions at their current levels.
If CO2 and T are the variables involved, what happened “suddenly” 3 million years ago to start the ice ages off? Surely the laws of physics did not change? The only possibility is continental drift, which cannot possibly affect the relationship between CO2 and T. Continental drift can only change the course of ocean currents, so ocean currents have to be a primary mechanism causing the ice ages.
I also had a symmetry argument against CO2/T relationship, but Jorgekafkazar has provided me with a reason why there may be asymmetry, with different rates for degassing and re-gassing.

Thank you for this analysis. I have sent this to all on my email list.
Question:
Isn’t the anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere a gnat on the windshield as compared to the volcanic activity on our planet? Isn’t that the real driver of CO2 concentrations and our contribution a drop in a very very large bucket? Doesn’t THAT make all this futile exercise? Not to mention that water vapor is a more important green house gas than CO2

Is this your Man From Nasa?

@Mike Bryant (18:00:31) :
****
Mary Hinge (15:24:54) said:
“He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.”
Frank, Mary will be giving classes on three AND four dimensional climate science processes. Be sure to sign up for the classes. You must learn.
****
Yes, i also now have this vision of these weather people are simply 4-dimensional people in their own Einsteinish universe. My good, it must be hard to go through this examin for meteology! Much harder than the physics and chemistry i took as civil engeneer, im sure.
In Denmark we have H.C.Andersen, and he wrote about the emperor with no clothes. It only worked because the tailors assured everyone that the emperor indeed had clothes on. It was only the “simple people” that could not see this. And thus everybody says nothing…
It seems that the crowd of peoble just telling the obvious is getting bigger and bigger. Some day soon the emperor will be embarresed? And I would not like to be in the shoes of the tailor.
Its striking that nothing has changed since H.C. Andersen died.

Note to Simon Evans
Firstly, Frank has articulated much better what I have been posting for some time in a number of places-thanks Frank!
Regarding my conversation with you and Smokey on the other thread I need to put things into context as I originally shared your scepticism on variable co2 levels.
I first became interested in Beck after looking at co2 against past known Hadley CET to 1660 and became aware of higher and lower temps in the past.
This graph;
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/menken_hobgoblin.jpg
was created with the correct unsmoothed temperatures and correct time scales overlaid with IPCC co2 data-not to same scale- but graphed to greatly exaggerate the levels so time scales and variations could be better seen.
After looking at it my thoughts were that temperature rise preceded co2 increases and co2 seemed to have nothing to do with anything as temperatures have fluctuated greatly in the past at only 280ppm (ice cores) well before we came on the scene. Alternatively the ‘correct’ co2 levels were missing prior to 1958 and a constant 280ppm was wrong.
This graph
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
is to correct scales and introduced the levels of man made co2 (blue line at the bottom) and some previous readings (green dots) from Beck. All the co2 action seems to take place between around 260-370ppm after which perhaps the logarithmic effect made little difference to temperatures.
I became aware of Beck’s work and independently researched the history of co2 and discovered that taking readings was very common from around 1820 for a variety of purposes connected with measuring levels (for ventilation purposes) from mines to medical to factories. Agricola was aware of co2 2000 years ago, as was Florence Nightingale in the 1850’s who I believe took readings , together with thousands of scientists- some of them Nobel winners. These readings are available in a variety of documents from ‘Air and water’ in 1872 to Frances Benedict in 1912 and Giles Slocum in 1956. There is also a complete bibliography of references to readings.
I subsequently corresponded with Beck (who puts his work on the web in a manner that would shame certain IPCC scientists) and I subsequently closely examined a small number of readings as regards the person, methodology, equipment, circumstances and likely accuracy. The only conclusion I could come to was that although by no means all of the 90000 readings ( a fraction of those taken that remain) were accurate, a significant proportion could not be easily dismissed.
Taking co2 readings was commonplace in previous times and was mentioned in Gaskells ‘North and South’ and a UK Factories act was put in place in 1889 which set a limit in factories and mines, enforced by the relevant inspectorate. The British do not put in place legislation unless it can be enforced (and people fined!) After looking at the various methods used- including the Haldane analyser, it was impossible to conclude anything other than that previous levels prior to 1958 and back to the first reliable readings-Saussure in 1820-were similar to today.
Looking in detail at the politics of the situation and the belief system of GS Callendar and Charles Keeling -who in effect ‘decided’ that 280ppm was the pre industrial level without any proof whatsoever (other than the formers highly selective use of the measurements to support his own theories) I looked at the ice cores. This is a highly technical area and a new science open to wide interpretation of what a tiny number of cores are telling us, and to me is unconvincing .
I had much the same questions as you put to me over on the other thread. I answered them myself, then thought why not ask Ernst Beck to confirm my thoughts. His reply to me was far more detailed than mine so I have-with his permission reproduced them. I have seen the second document he mentions-but this is only generally available on payment. It adds a fair bit to our understanding but the new work he is compiling will be more comprehensive.
That Co2 flux and sources/sinks is a complex and largely unknown area is apparent-the idea that we are thinking of transforming our lifestyles and economy based on such flimsy evidence as has emerged so far claiming our supposed culpability is astonishing. I do not pretend to have the answers but two things remain that to me are unresolved.
Temperatures in the past have fluctuated greatly without the mechanism of co2 fluctuation, suggesting that at best it is a weak driver as evidenced by the constant ice core measurements. Or that co2 is some sort of driver-albeit still weak- and past levels have always fluctuated around modern levels. In this case blaming man and proclaiming doom and gloom seems misplaced.
I am further concerned that the ‘evidence’ for man made co2 being the cuplrit is based on highly theoretical and therefore unproven hypotheses backed up by computer models that even the IPCC say should not be relied on.
This is a long post so I will stop here and put up your original and highly pertinent objections shortly, together with the reply from Ernst Beck.
TonyB

re Francois O (13:31:35), it is high time that in all countries taxpayers insist that all tax-funded science be published where all taxpayers can read it.

I am tired of epicycles. This note is going to generate even more of them in order to turn the Temperature/CO2 correlation into a plausible cause: CO2 effect:temperature rise.
Nobody disputes there is a correlation, it is the direction and the magnitude of the role of CO2 in temperature rising that is crucial for AGW climate models that is at risk here.
It is instructive to think of the epicycles: Scientists of that time added more and more epicycles as more and more planetary objects were discovered. They were discarded when the causative arrow became clear, planets go around the sun and not the sun around the earth. Even now, if you take a geocentric system, epicycles will appear, but what is their use except in astrology ( a correlation is causation industry too)?
Scientists should aim for the clear, simple and illuminating explanation. This post helps in this direction.
I think it is time for real scientists in the climate community to take stock and decide that the GCM models do not work: CO2 is dominantly effect and not cause, there are no errors with the scenaria,(1) just fuzzy logic, the tropospheric temperatures do not behave, except if one presumes large errors, temperatures have plateaued It seems the PDO etc ( storing and releasing heat) together with changes in albedo ( the Plame plot) can simply describe what we see as global temperatures.
CO2/water feedback was an interesting hypothesis that has not panned out. A true scientist lets go, and looks for the next challenge ( I would suggest models like Tsonis et al are building).
In my field, Particle Physics, we had the really great scientist Feynman sticking to his parton model for quite a while. He had to give in to QCD, in the end . Data said differently and he accepted it.
*******
(1) Only a 1 sigma change in the assumed albedo of the GCM models will make a 1C error about any scenario line

foinavon
Where is this evidence that the CO2 rising preceeds warming in the north? If true it still doesn’t make sense because than the order would be South warms CO2 rises North warms. That wouldn’t be good evidence that CO2 was the cause of the warming more like CO2 has little to do with it.
In addition when I first saw the ice core data from Greenland at a presented paper in a 1990 ACS meeting this was not the case. In other words it was clear from the Greenland data as well that the warming had happened first though the time lag was less.

Thank you for the article and the analysis. Very interesting.
Setting aside all the technical issues, what I find most disturbing — and revealing — about the pro-AGW crowd is the extent to which so many of them desperately WANT it to be true that mankind is facing an enormous disaster that will require us to abandon modern industrial technology and suffer a drastic reduction in our living standards. Many of them are positively SALIVATING over the prospect of seeing us shivering in the dark, with drastically curtailed travel privileges, severely rationed food and water consumption, draconian restrictions on electricity usage, etc.
Of course, there are some who buy into the fantasy that we can restrict CO2 emissions to the levels of 50 years ago and not suffer anything other than a mild inconvenience. But that’s just a story to assuage the fears of the less extreme members of the movement. The core believers — the Hansen’s, the Mann’s and their followers — would be absolutely emotionally devastated if some way were found to easily counter the effects of CO2 or if some evidence were uncovered that overwhelmingly and undeniably refuted the AGW claims.
I can’t imagine what sort of corruption of the soul can leave one hoping that mankind suffers such a calamity. I can only hope against hope that they will not succeed in convincing the rest of us to commit suicide for the sake of the mosquitoes, the polar bears and the snail darters.

Mike McMillan (16:06:06) :
Except that it is true.
300 lbs for the first inch, 600 lbs for the second, 900 lbs for the third inch.

Thanks for confirming your level of understanding of basic physics. If you are going to claim someone is wrong, you should try and provide supporting evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law
(yes, I know wiki is not proof, but if you care, you can find a basic physics textbook)

Frank Lansner, thanks for the post and all the efforts to help us clarify. I now have a new way of conceptualizing the cause:effect issue. From Figure 4 on, many minds should be jiggle and jogged; yes, the emperor is naked and we simple-people-Alice’s have been living in the rabbit’s hole. It is time for a breath of fresh air filled with all that life-giving CO2. Kudos to WUWT.

Its worth pointing out that Petit et al 1999, (Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica: Nature 399, p 429) actually provide an excellent overview of the Vostok data. Their postulation of the role of CO2 feedback forcing climate will not be the to taste of every reader of WUPT, but they do make many good observations.
Amongst those they argue that the CO2 rise at terminations is likely within error of aligning ice age and gas age and I happen to agree with that (there are large uncertainties in both). The time lag at terminations therefore is likely an artifact, but the time lag during cooling is very real, as this article points out.

Looking at the graphs it occurred to a mechanism that might explain them, it relies on heat from the planets core. As the planets core is hot there must be a flow of heat to the planets surface ( including the sea bed ). Given open water conditions this heat flow can probably be considered negligible but if all the sea surface becomes frozen, the ice would act as an insulating layer which would allow the oceans to become warmer. When the water temperature or some outside influence caused the ice to melt this would allow large amounts of water vapour in to atmosphere via tropical storms and create a large green house effect slowing the cooling of the oceans. When the oceans had lost sufficient heat they would freeze over again and the cycle would repeat. The length of the cooling would depend how much heat the oceans contained at the time of melting. Probably far to simple an explanation but worse than AGW.
Steve

Frank, one of your volcanic URL’s seems to be a right fraud, we’ve just had some fun exploring here. Upshot is, it’s as I thought, no recent seismic activities increase, rather, the correlation appears to be with solar low activity.

Moderator
I have tried twice today to post a long item from Ernst Beck which is a reply to Simon Evans and a continuation of my post-00 31 16
Has it got caught in a spam filter or does it reject items over a certain length? Your help is appreciated.
TonyB
Reply: There are only two people moderating, and at times there is no coverage, so comments remain in the queue. Your comments are now posted. My apologies, I will try to check in more often. ~ dbstealey, mod.

Robert (22:14:16) :
and Jim Steele (20:35:21) :
“Lets refer to Figure 5 in Frank’s post and look at the horizontal green line for experiment 1 representing 264 ppm. If CO2 is responsible for maintaining the temperature why is the same amount of CO2 only able to maintain a temperature that is 4 degree colder as we approach a glacial minimum? And if, as Hansen claims, that CO2 is he main driver, why at the same amount of CO2 is the temperature rising at A and then again falling at B?”
Please read the article again, Jim. Hansen et al. only claim that CO2 is the main driver when averaged over tens to hundreds of millions of years. For the Pleistocene glaciations, they note that CO2 (plus all the other greenhouse gases) have an influence that is actually slightly less than the albedo effect of the changing ice masses. Makes sense. When you melt back ice that covers half of NAm and much of Eurasia, you’re going to lose a lot of reflectivity (i.e., albedo). So, elevated greenhouse gases can accompany lower temperatures if other drivers are in play (e.g., the albedo is high). There are other things going on in the Pleistocene as well like thermohaline current changes.
Once again, paleoclimatologists do not claim that GHGs are the only way to change climate, just that, for the last 50 years, they’re the only climate forcings that happen to be increasing commensurately. You’re not going to argue that global warming is being caused by ice sheet albedo changes are you? If so, you’d have a hard (i.e., impossible) time showing that the oxygen isotope values changed over the past 50 years like they did in the Pleistocene.
So, the subject of this blog entry, because it ONLY looks at CO2/temperature relationships and ignores all others (especially albedo), cannot invalidate GHGs as an important agent of climate change.