Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Click for larger image Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:
Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.
The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:
Fig 3.
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.
I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…
The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.
So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:
Fig 5.
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:
Fig 6.
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?
One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”
This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.
But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.
– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.
Fig 7.
Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.
However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.
When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.
It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:
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 does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing I have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass PMI-001 exam fast using self study 70-290 guide and 350-029 tutorial.
Bill Illis,
The chart you presented is very persuasive. I remember when Paul first showed the WFT website, he also presented a similar graph (without the offset) that clearly showed the CO2 rise preceeding the temperature increase. At the time Paul cautioned against making too much of it, however CO2 rise now seems to be a robust indicator of future temperature rise, on the shoprter and longer time scales.
Thanks for the presentation and the advice… thin lines….
Mike Bryant
OOPS, I meant temperature rise preceeds the CO2 rise sorry…
Mike Bryant
Rob,
“Atmospheric [CO2] is easily measured through direct air sampling and is attributable to fossil fuel burning through isotope studies.”
Try reading the paper by Tom Quirk “ Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide” The isotopic balance in the atmosphere is far more complex and there are many more variables than your simplistic conclusion. First consider that 94% of all anthropogenic CO2 is released into the northern hemisphere. Next the CO2 is not well mixed as the IPCC state. From the nuclear tests in the 60’s the mixing north to south is very slow, like several years ( another rhetorical question) so why is the average northern hemisphere CO2 not higher than the south?
“satellite radiometers and cosmic particle capture experiments demonstrate that TSI and cosmic ray flux show no overall trend over the past few decades, eliminating solar variability and cosmic ray cloud seeding as possible forcings.”
Where on earth do you get this nonsense from, the variations are extremely well documented and are quite significant, I am not long on posting web sites but try this one. http://www.spaceweather.com/ It has lots of good links.
Acidity of the oceans,what a red herring, the CO2 is rapidly converted into carbonates and sinks to the bottom there are many papers on this subject.
As a final shot try doing a mass balance calculation on the IPCC carbon cycle on page 515 of the 4th AR, pure unadulterated drivel. I made up a simple excel program and used their numbers where possible, the results at balance are quite suprising.
One more “The amount of increase is consistent with observed warming of the troposphere and simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere.” Have you even read the IPCC 4th AR and their predictions then compared them to the UAH and RSS data over the last 30 years. Their computer predictions are so far wrong it is beyond belief that they call themselves scientists and they are still trying to reinvent the wheel to wriggle out of their total embarrasment.
Jim Steele (13:53:07) :
I am curious what you would predict for the sun cycle 25?
We cannot predict two cycles ahead because the amount of magnetic flux that ends up in the polar cap depends on a random process. However, one can make a statistical guess [cycle 25 will be low], just as one can make a statistical guess that the sum of two dice thrown at random would be 7+/-1 and be right almost half the time.
Rob (15:15:09) :
Now we’re getting somewhere. I think you’ll agree that attributing causes to the past few decades is much easier
You are grasping at straws, Rob. You aren’t getting anywhere. The heat stored in the oceans, the vertical and horizontal mixings are not modeled well at all. There is more heat in the upper few meters of ocean than in the total atmosphere. When and where that heat is released is totally unpredictable. No one can predict that. Increasees in solar activity may have created heat stored in the oceans that still has yet to be released. The PDO was only recently recognized by fish biologist. Predicting ENSO is still guess work.
Maybe you want tell us all that you were able to predict that with the rising CO2 that predicted the global cooling trend for the past 10 years?
Thanks Ric. So you’d have to post a link to a personal website where any graphical material would be placed? Link only? Just trying to figure out how to join the conversations! Thanks, Ed
Kevin B (15:28:41) :
“I like to think of atmospheric CO2 levels as partly the result of a race between the flora and the fauna.”
I love the clarity of the image that presents.
And according to the famous graph with Scotese and Berner data, the Flora is winning and we have become carbon poor.
At least it was winning until mankind took out its shovel, started digging, and tossed some of that carbon back into the air.
Squidly (16:44:10) :
“Does this fact not invalidate the “feedback heating” hypothesis?”
Yes, I believe it does. Also the fact that the earth has been much hotter in the past without bursting into flames. Also what Frank has shown here, that cooling happens at the higher CO2 after the temperature peak.
Jim Steele (18:12:15) :
“Maybe you want tell us all that you were able to predict that with the rising CO2 that predicted the global cooling trend for the past 10 years?”
The averaged global temperature of the past 10 years was almost 0.2 degrees C higher than that of the previous 10 years. Do you actually think that the next 10 years will be cooler?
davidc (17:26:16) :
“You sound like you might be a climate scientist, in which case things might be different where you are, but for the rest of science it goes something like this.”
I’m not really a climate scientist. I do dabble in paleoclimate research and am jealous of the quality of data accessible to those studying the past 50 years. Thanks for the lesson on the scientific method, by the way. However, keep in mind Albert Einstein’s words
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
when attributing too much importance to a nonpeer-reviewed study that proposes CO2 is the only climate driver explaining isolated events that happened hundreds of thousands of years during a time period with MUCH different boundary conditions than today and, furthermore are recorded indirectly in the geologic record.
barry moore (18:00:31) :
“Try reading the paper by Tom Quirk “ Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide”
In which peer-reviewed journal does this appear? Ditto for all your other references to TSI variations, ocean acidity, and Excel recalculations of IPCC mass balances. Finally, educate me. Show me exactly how wrong the AR4 IPCC predictions are w.r.t. satellite temp estimates. Make sure now that you use the same reference baseline period for the satellite data and predictions!
Rob: I agree with you to the extent that CO2 is increasing, the increase is anthropogenic, and that isotope studies seem to support this (as does the basic mechanics of the carbon cycle).
However, at his point I must depart company. CO2 does not correlate well with temperature increase from the post WWII era. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a warming effect. But I think the degree of the effect is so small (and also ‘way into diminishing returns) that it is utterly swamped by other factors (such as six cycles flipping from cold to warm phase between 1976 and 2001) and barely shows up even as an underlying signal.
From that point, with “all the faucets running hot” we have had very flat temperatures. Then, starting in 2007, the PDO went cold and the temperatures have cooled. That is not only a good correlation, but it is a second-order correlation, and that is very strong evidence (CO2/temp. rise is at best only of the first order).
And even said small underlying signal may be due or mostly due to a steady (c. 1°F) three-century long recovery from the low point of the LIA to the current Optimum. AGW supporters loudly pooh-pooh this premise, but not for any convincing reason I have ever read.
evanjones (20:25:09) :
Fair enough. But, as they say, the proof will be in the pudding. If globally averaged temp keeps increasing and >0.1 degree C every decade for the next few decades (I should last that long, anyway), then it will be hard to pin it on a natural recovery from the LIA. Myself, I’ll bet on the Physics over the “natural trends”.
An interesting coincidence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426
(Plant) Food for Thought (apologies – written too late at night)
Background:
http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
1. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
2. “The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present). During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials…
… On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 myr BP of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm.”
Questions and meanderings:
A. According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not?
Does this (possible) loss of plant life have anything to do with rebounding of atmospheric CO2 levels as the world exits the Ice Age (in combination with other factors such as ocean exsolution)? could this contribute to the observed asymmetry?
When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Regards, Allan 🙂
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:31) said We cannot predict two cycles ahead because the amount of magnetic flux that ends up in the polar cap depends on a random process.
Thanks Leif. Your choice of words “the amount of magnetic flux” puzzles me though. My apologies if I am misinterpreting but it almost sounds as if you conceptualize “static or solid chunks of magnetic flux” that move around. Am I intrepreting you correctly?
I always think of flux as a field that is a product of electric currents and wonder what you are inferring?
Rob (19:41:03) I congratulate you as a master of obfuscation and tap dancing. I say trend and you reply average. I will look for meaningful dialogue elsewhere.
Jim Steele wrote “Maybe you want tell us all that you were able to predict that with the rising CO2 that predicted the global cooling trend for the past 10 years?”
Rob replied The averaged global temperature of the past 10 years was almost 0.2 degrees C higher than that of the previous 10 years. Do you actually think that the next 10 years will be cooler?
Rob (20:35:57) :
“Myself, I’ll bet on the Physics over the “natural trends”.
That’s nice for you – just don’t make the rest of us pony up for your bet.
Rob
“Show me exactly how wrong the AR4 IPCC predictions are w.r.t. satellite temp estimates. Make sure now that you use the same reference baseline period for the satellite data and predictions!”
I’ll do that one better. Lucia shows ALL the temp series falsify the IPPC projections up to the present moment. But I’d caution you against poo-pooing her work, or claiming it isn’t ‘peer-reviewed’, because when she emails Hansen with a question, he responds immediately.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
Oh, and btw, she is not a denier, not even a skeptic. She’s an empiricist and only strives to get the science right.
Jim Steele (21:18:41) :
you conceptualize “static or solid chunks of magnetic flux” that move around. Am I intrepreting you correctly?
In a sense, yes. See below.
I always think of flux as a field that is a product of electric currents and wonder what you are inferring?
In physics there is a sort of ‘confusion’ between H and B, the magnetic field and the magnetic induction. Most physicists now consider B to be the more fundamental quantity and ‘magnetic field’ is often used for B rather than for H. Electrical engineers refer to B as magnetic flux density. [you could say the whole thing is in flux 🙂 ]. Anyway, here is my take on it [matches most solar physicist’s]: a solar magnetograph looks at a small piece of the Sun’s surface and we measure the ‘number of field lines’ through that surface [along the line of sight], this we call the ‘flux’ [measured in Maxwells or Webers]. If we divide by the area of that piece, we get the ‘flux density’ B. Because the solar photosphere is a conductor [conductivity like that of sea water] and [more importantly] because the scale [length] of magnetic structures is so huge, the field is ‘frozen into’ the plasma [the MHD approximation] and moves with it. So, move the plasma around and you move the magnetic flux with it. Technical papers on these matters are often inconsistent in terminology, but the reader usually figures out from the context what is meant.
Wow, that is great!!! We can get rid of horses and motors all together then! All we need is someone to give our motorless cars a gentle shove and we’re off!!!
Kinda like the Flintstones. 🙂 – Mike Bryant
Not “kinda like the Flintstones”, but exactly like the Flintstones. You must have noticed that when Barney Rubble climbed into his car, there were never any horses pulling it. I noticed.
It would all make perfect sense if everything was always rolling downhill. In “DownhillWorld”” there’s no need to provide power to make anythng work. DownhillWorld is just like everybody else’s world, except it’s tipped over at 20 – 30 degrees to the horizontal, in all directions. In DownhillWorld, the real danger is of everything that happens becoming an avalanche, so that if you, say, drop something on the floor, it’ll hit something else and start it moving, and the next thing you know your kitchen table and chairs will be tumbling downhill along with your neighbour’s cat, and dog, and house, and half the neighbourhood as well.
Jim Hansen, I suspect, inhabits a DownhillWorld in which everything is near its ‘tipping point’, in which everything is on the edge of falling over, and beyond which there is an inevitable ‘runaway’ avalanche. It’s a world in which all the crockery on the dinner table is slowly sliding towards the edge, and you need a rail to stop them falling (like they have on ships).
And, in a great many ways, the real world really is a DownhillWorld. There are avalanches. There is a chemical activation energy. The explosion of a nuclear bomb does entail a chain reaction which is a sort of avalanche. But the real world is also one in which these avalanches come to a stop. Somehow or other, when thousands of tons of rocks have cascaded downhill, they come to a halt. And when I light a cigarette, the whole world doesn’t catch fire. And when they set off the nuclear bomb, the whole world did not explode. Why was that?
Sandy wrote:
“Science is going to have lot of trouble removing the fools who are prepared to lie for a grant. It is going to have even more trouble regaining its credibility. Still, every scientist who published or posted to the ‘net in support of the CO2 delusion is on record and their future work can be accorded the respect it deserves.”
I suggest that a “Hall of Shame” website be set up where the statements can be cataloged, and that it be well-publicized now. This will concentrate the minds of the go-along/get-along trend followers in science–they’ll know there will be accountability down the road.
As for the panjandrums (officials) in scientific organizations like the NAS who have endorsed AGW as settled and thereby marginalized a contrarian position as unworthy of consideration, they should be dismissed from their posts, once AGW is falsified by events, probably within a couple of years. The republic has no need of such personnel.
Re Richard Feynman and What Is Science…
Apropos of the value of non-climate scientists questioning the experts.
The link is to a talk by Feynman, in which he gives a definition of Science.
AGWers, and Deniers both should read this!
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Rob. When are you AGW fanatics going to stop hiding behind the “peer review” smoke screen, do you not have a brain that can think for itself or are you just mindless sheep. I posted that the excel program was my own because I believe in doing my own research. Frankly I trust nothing until I have validated it using my own methods and I try to get fundamental data which has not been customized by people like Mann and Hansen. Then I draw my conclusions.
Try doing your own evaluations from first principals if you have the education and intelligence to do so. I am not going to waste my time in lengthy peer review references, read the material and decide for yourself if it is valid or not, if not tell me where the author erred. The TSI is published daily by NASA of course it is not peer reviewed it is just basic data which is what you should be looking at not someone else’s opinion if you want to know the truth look at the basic data not “peer reviewed” opinions. The IPCC boast a long list of “peer reviewers” the only trouble is if you read the articles by these “Peer reviewers” you will find many like Dr. Vincent Grey, just as example, disagreed with the IPCC but their edits and comments backed up with “peer reviewed” papers were thrown in the garbage because they were not politically acceptable. So much for your “peer review “ process it is a total sham and is censored at the political whim of the journal to which it was submitted. Thus we can create the illusion of “consensus”. You obviously have not read the IPCC4th AR and seen the predictions they made then compare them with the actual data from climate4you or woodfortrees web sites there are many ocean acidity “peer reviewed” papers but if you are too lazy to find them why should I bother.
Allan. An interesting post and it reiterates many points I have been trying to make. One of the responses I had was that grasses do not suffer from the low CO2 as much as other plants I still have to check this out, there is a wealth of research material on the effect of enhanced CO2 on plant life I do not think there is so much on depleted CO2 but I intend to follow it up.
I must disagree with you on the significance of leaf stomata, earlier I posted a reference to a paper on this subject, the correlation between CO2 and leaf stomata from 1950 to 2000 was studied and the proxy is found to be very robust. Unlike the ice core samples which are 1000 year averages in a single sample the leaf stomata are very date specific the biggest problem is dating the sample by carbon dating when dealing with very old fossils. The paper I referenced addressed the time period from 6800 BP to 8000 BP so the carbon dating was quite accurate since the half life of 14C is 5730 years.
I have already addressed one of your questions which is the ice core samples are proven to be 30 to 50% low so the CO2 never got that low thus no die off of vegetation and animal starvation which is supported by fossil remains. I think it is established that the CO2 came from the oceans as they warmed up.
Yes if we had 1000 ppm CO2 we would be living in a much better world. But the Milakovich cycles will take care things and humanity will freeze in another 10 000 years but that really will not bother us will it.
Idlex,
The downhill world is alive and well within the GCMs… Fortunately, wind, solar and geothermal work splendidly in our downhill world! Just a gentle nudge, a push, a shove and the wheels of commerce and manufacture will spin wildly making our downhill dreams come true! Yes Mr. Idlex, the world is heading downhill. The downhill students of the recent downhill past will be employed by the downhill energy experts who have been pushing the downhill windmills and the downhill solar farms. We will all thrive on the downhill money and the downhill energy which will power our downhill lifestyle into the beautiful downhill future. Yup, we’re heading downhill to hell in a handbasket with downhill wheels
Ain’t it great?!?
Mike Bryant
Err….here….