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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joel Shore (07:02:05) :
There are a number of graphs (fig 2 & 4) showing the Wm-2 values at different latitudes. There is a significant change (40 Wm-2) in received solar energy across 100,000 years and if you look at the equatorial values it gives a mean value. There are many orbital aspects that effect solar output received, position of Sun relative to centre of ellipse, speed changes at closest point of ellipse etc, you might be wise to look at the data rather than postulate on what you think might happen.
Leif, when i write “ROUGHLY ROUGHLY” it means that you should NOT take it littery , quantitatively(?!) Could i have written that more clear??
Of course there is another situation after thousands of years of ocean temperature adjusting, why dont you answer properly?
(And obviously we will approach a realequilibrium after x*thousand years, so your far out exaggeration to million years is in no way an answer to anything. )
Frank Lansner (15:51:06) :
Leif, when i write “ROUGHLY ROUGHLY” it means that you should NOT take it littery , quantitatively(?!) Could I have written that more clear??
When you give numbers, like 1K, I suppose that should be taken seriously. And you were clear enough. Your argument is that after the first equilibrium is reached after 1000 years, the whole thing starts over again and we sink another 0.05K the next thousand years, and so on. Very clear, and very wrong. Once an equilibrium is reached, it stays where it is if the solar input stays where it is, no matter for how long.
And we do not need the whole ocean to come to equilibrium taking a thousand years. The surface layers warm up with little delay: the warm waters I swim in during the summer was not the result of warming a thousand years ago.
Figure 2 shows mid-June insolation. That will obviously vary as the eccentricity changes and the axis of rotation precesses. Figure 4 at least shows enough data (i.e., insolation as a function of both time of year and latitude) to in principle get the result we want but to actually get the mean annual solar insolation would require doing an integration of the time of year and over the surface of the earth, which ain’t too easy to do in one’s head, especially from data on a contour plot. Already, however, you can see the basic cancellation effects at work: the top two figures show a larger variation of insolation over time and location while the bottom show a smaller variation but you can see that the variations are such that a substantial cancellation will occur in regards to the mean value.
Well, first of all, that isn’t really data. It’s a calculation. Second of all, you can’t get the number that I am talking about from those plots. And, third of all, I have already thought roughly about the effects of position and speed changes. For example, because of the 1/r^2 law, the average radiation of an earth that spent half its time at a distance of (5/4)r from the sun and half its time at a distance of (3/4)r from the sun is actually larger than if it spent all of its time at a distance r. However, because the earth will have a higher velocity when it is closer to the sun (and, even moreso, a higher angular velocity), it will spend less of its time at close to the sun than further away. So, these two effects will come in with opposite signs and at least partly cancel.
I admit that I haven’t actually shown you that the annual mean insolation changes very little but I have provided a reference that states this without proof and have provided you with plausibility arguments of how such cancellations will occur when you consider the annual mean solar insolation over the whole earth. All that you have provided me is evidence that shows what nobody is contesting which is that the Milankovitch oscillations cause significant changes in the distribution of solar insolation on the earth (in both location and time of year) and you somehow seem to think that these prove your point, which they don’t whatsoever.
Sorry, I should refer to the quantity that I am talking about as the “global annual mean insolation” as Masuda correctly does. (In the above, I used “annual mean insolation” because I thought “mean” in that context meant averaging over location but it seems to be used in the literature to mean just averaging over time so people talk about the “annual mean insolation” at a certain location or latitude. Urgh!!)
Leif tell me about it. Wallowa Lake is one very cold body of water! Only the top 5 to 6 inches warms up during the summer, unless you are at the shallow end and you don’t go past your knees. BUT, it is a very good lake to learn to ski in. You REALLY do NOT want to fall IN!
@Leif:
If the deeper layers are warm it will result in higher temperatures of the upper layers of water and vice versa. So what you see after just 50 years is not only an equilibrium with the new sun-condition, its also an equilibrium with deeper waters. As these will warm over thousands of years, the “buffer from downunder” will keep changing until the REAL equilibrium is reached.
To think that 50 years of a temperature influence wil result in the same warming as 20.000 of a temperature influence is hardly 100% correct.
– But never mind, its not important for the pressent issue.
– But i agree, Leif, the deep ocean temperature is of NO consequence when speaking in centuries etc, has no consequense for “global warming” development in the present century. And yes of course its not 20 * 0,05 K = 1K, that line was 100% to make you understand my point, nothing else.
Frank Lansner (00:57:12) :
To think that 50 years of a temperature influence wil result in the same warming as 20.000 of a temperature influence is hardly 100% correct.
If there is an error here, it is in thinking that the 0.05K cooling will be achieved over 50 years. It will be achieved over 20,000.
And yes of course its not 20 * 0,05 K = 1K, that line was 100% to make you understand my point, nothing else.
I fail to see how an incorrect line can make me see a correct point.
I hope CO2 is not the cause of GW. I am confused, in figure 2 is temp pulling CO2 up or is CO2 pushing temp up? What was the volcantic activity during these periods, and how many cows were on earth?
Thanks
Frank Lansner wrote;
“If the deeper layers are warm it will result in higher temperatures of the upper layers of water and vice versa.”
Yes but cooling at the ocean surface takes a long time to influence the whole water coumn so that the upper layers stay cool.
As changes in the Earth’s orbital configuration etc. signal warming, sea water begins to store heat – AND – because warm sea water is less dense than cold sea water, the warm water floats on the surface and is available to circulating air masses /// allowing temperature increases to feed on heat in the ocean surface layers to produce rapid warming.
As changes in the Earth’s orbital configuration etc. signal cooling, sea water begins to cool — AND – because cold sea water is more dense than warm sea water, the cold water sinks below the previously warmed water mass so that the circulating air masses are picking up stored heat /// and this stored heat continues to feed the atmosphere for 10s of thousands of years until cold sea water finally remains perched on cold sea water.
Peter Salonius
Carrying on with the phenomenon of warm (lighter) sea water floating on cold (denser) sea water as global warming proceeds – AND – cooled (denser) water sinking below previously warmed water as global cooling proceeds, we have an explanation for the slowness with which atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop during cooling.
The high atmospheric CO2 levels, left over from the interglacial period, do not have access to the cooled water and its ability to absorb more of the gas than warm water because the cooled water quickly sinks and is unaccessible to the circulating atmosphere. The ocean surface that is in contact with the circulating atmosphere does not fully reflect the cooling that has taken place until the entire water column has cooled so that there is cold water — capable of disolving large amounts of CO2 — readily available to the circulating atmosphere.
Peter Salonius
1. Never confuse lab results with nature. Richard Feynman said that the physics we know is the simple part; natural physics in the real world is far too simple for [15] blind generalization.
2. In real science we never label a speculative idea to be true by fiat. Ordinary scientists would lose their reputations simply by mislabeling a wild hypothesis as the truth. They would be isolated like a cyst in the human body, blocked from spreading the infection.
3. In real science the burden of proof is always on the proposer, never on the skeptics.
4. In real science ‘data surrogates” are never accepted without long-term testing.
Until a decade or two ago we didn’t have satellites to measure global temperatures. Before that time we had to rely on very spotty and locally distorted surface thermometers, or even worse, ice core surrogates for real world temperatures. But those core samples take decades of testing and open debate before we know what they really measure. It took centuries for the mercury thermometer to be adopted. Can we really believe the story that ice cores and tree cores tell us the truth about global temperatures eons ago? I don’t know, but in a toxified field of research, I don’t trust it.
5. In real science we never smuggle untested premises into the words we use.
The very term “greenhouse gas” is an unproven assumption. Don’t even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures. So far the evidence doesn’t look good.
6. In real science we never corrupt the integrity of research by slanting grants toward any preconceived idea. Nor do we allow ourselves to be rushed into making huge claims without adequate testing and debate. Political deadlines mean nothing in real science.
7. In the real world, much less real science, we never, never believe politicians when they claim to know a scientific truth; they are unqualified, and they are professional liars.
Al Gore is a sick joke. The same can be said about the establishment media, and yes, even about scientist-politicians.
Scientists are as corruptible as anybody else. Good scientists do have a conscience, but it’s the double-checking mechanisms of science that makes it trustworthy. We routinely see corrupt accountants and clergy in the news, and the news business itself is deeply corrupted and untrustworthy. The question is, do you build in checks and balances? Reporters are always rushed and deadline-driven, and they always trade off their integrity against the daily pressure for headlines.
All this affects you personally. Don’t doubt that your life and mine depend upon healthy science and medicine, and yes, even on honest journalism.
8. Finally, in real science we never confuse an infant research effort with a mature science that has been checked and triple-checked over decades.
Climate modeling is just a toddler science, barely able to waddle around the living room. It’s a nice idea to try modeling the earth’s atmosphere. But nature is inconceivably more complex than what we ever see in a laboratory jar. There are no proven “greenhouse gases” in the real atmosphere, just as there are no proven causes of alcoholism or obesity. Alcoholism is an incredibly complex mix of nutrients, heredity, epigenetics, exercise, lifestyle, early learning, puberty, social support, economics, food availability, optimism, toxins, sunshine, interactions, feedback loops, and all the unknown unknowns.
Great post, Exton. I wanted you to know others have read it.
I’m still a little bit perplexed here. Maybe someone could help me.
Are not the “temperture” records based on the O18 to O16 ratio?
And, if one really checks out the meaning of these ratios, do they not merely
reflect the NUMBER OF TROPICAL COSTAL THUNDERSTORMS…and not truely represent temperature?
Atmospheric energy, granted. Tropospheric temperature? I have had, and continued to have my doubts on this.
Just as the concept of “average temperature” has a “confused units” problem. (I.e., temperature is an INTENSIVE variable, not an EXTENSIVE variable.) So too do almost all the ice core studies, in that the “proxy” probably proves nothing about “temperature” per see, but does give us some idea of atmospheric energy.
Mark H. Minneapolis, MN
Exton. I also want to say Great post.
However, I fear that while your name begins with E, there is a word that begins with a nearby letter that you will soon be labeled with.
Richard. Im constantly refreshing my online bank account waiting for some oil money to appear. What´s taking the oil companyies so long?? Did i really write these articles and then no oil money??
I have read all these super nice writings, thanks. Often i see a quite nuanced picture, the more blog entries the more muddy, complex things normaly become.
But not here. I havent seen ONE comment here who seriously explains how CO2 could be the important temperature driver in connection with fig 4 and 5. Funny thing is, “the whole world” is watching this blog. If no one here, not even Hinge, Flanagan or Ebgelbeen etc. can show anything really wrong… who can?
I hope one day soon that we see a CO2 theory no longer walking on water.
I hope we can all enjoy science again. Just enjoy what comes from Nasa´s Mars missions, From hubble. I hope things will be like i the good old days, when science was about exploring the universe. It was SO nice, those where the days 🙂
nick warren (09:02:47) : I am confused, in figure 2 is temp pulling CO2 up or is CO2 pushing temp up? What was the volcantic activity during these periods, and how many cows were on earth?
Temperature goes up first, then CO2 follows. It is believed that the warmer temperatures drives CO2 from the oceans. Then temperatures drop and the CO2 drops, going back into colder water.
Over these long periods of time there will have been many volcanoes. They cause some of the short term bumps and dips, but no long term trends.
Cows? A relatively recent domestication. There were few cows until very recently (about 30,000 years) before that their ancestors were wild oxen. The cows make no difference until very recently, and maybe even not then.
Exton came and went, leaving a really great post behind.
“Who was that masked man? I wanted to thank him!”
[OK, that Lone Ranger quote dates me as an old fart. If being sixty is old…]
And thanx Frank Lansner for a fascinating article, which has generated a great number of interesting comments. One of Anthony’s great strengths is including articles by common-sense engineers in addition to the theorizing of university based PhDs and scientific bodies, whose leadership presumes to speak for all of their rank and file members.
Engineers are the people who actually make things happen and solve problems in the real world. IMHO they should be given equal weighting with theoretical speculation concerning CO2 and temperatures. And both engineers and university professors should trump politically appointed bodies like the UN/IPCC and perpetually grant seeking government employees in the climate sciences, like the UK’s Met office, the NOAA, GISS, etc.
Frank,
As you may have noticed, I do support this story, simply because there is no measurable influence of CO2 on temperature visible in the ice cores, which should be the case if CO2 was an important driver for temperature (according to climate models, some 40% of the temperatuer change is due to CO2 as “feedback”). Not in the Vostok ice core or any other ice core. See the references I did give at 07:56:35, February 1st…
Where we differ in opinion is the cause of the recent rise in CO2: temperature (but then the ice core record must be wrong) or emissions (and then the ice core record still is right). In the latter case, temperature variations only cause the variability around the trend, not the current trend itself…
E.M. Smith / E. Warren:
About cows and any use of food/feed:
Humans and animals just use food/feed which contains CO2 which was captured some months to years before from the same atmosphere where it returns by exhaling. Averaged over a decade or so, this doesn’t add or extract CO2 to/from the atmosphere. Fossil fuels were stored for millions of years, thus add to the current atmosphere, while they were extracted from the ancient atmosphere (when CO2 levels were sky high)…
Cows, sheep, goats,… are somewhat different as their stomach uses bacteria to break down cellulose (which humans and most animals can’t), with as byproduct relative much methane. Methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2 – molecule by molecule – but is broken down quite rapidely in the atmosphere by ozone and OH radicals (half life of about 10 years). Current levels of methane in the atmosphere are quite stable since about a decade, thus despite China eating more meat nowadays (and planting more rice, another important source of CH4), there is little to worry about methane from animal breeding.
Smokey: Thankyou so much for your writing!
Good old Engelbeen:
You write: “Where we differ in opinion is the cause of the recent rise in CO2”.
– The thing is, Ebgelbeen, that IF what im saying in this article is correct , then we have the period going back 1/2 mio years NOT supporting CO2 as a catastrophical temperature driver. We already had data going back 500 mio years showing the same. So the foundation to believe that CO2 is dangerously drinving temperature is… well…. gone?
And on this basis, the discussion about what causes CO2 rise is no longer that relevant… is doesnt matter quite as much what causes CO2 if CO2 is not really a problem. Only for scientific purposes! But the CO2 considderations are no longer important to the climate debate, it appears.
Yes, its a little provocative to say so… but… Whats keeping CO2 important in the climate debate, really?
http://www.nofeestamps.net/climate/TDThadcrut.gif
Ferdinand Englebeen,
Have you taken into consideration the methane emitted by tens of millions of North American bison prior to the arrival of Europeans?
Frank,
I fully agree, the theoretical increase in temperature (based on IR absorption lines) is about 0.85 K, with water vapour feedback 1.2 K. The rest of the “positive” feedbacks is pure speculation, like clouds which no climate model can predict as observed, and probably are a negative feedback…
But some sceptics think that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not man-made, only because that is another pilar of AGW: if the increase is not man-made (or there were larger variations in the past), then the effect of 2xCO2 doesn’t matter, as only nature is to blame…
For me the discussion still is relevant: One need to be as critical for what is said by sceptics as by AGW people: science should give the right answers, even if one doesn’t like the result…
Frank Lansner (13:42:09) :
But not here. I havent seen ONE comment here who seriously explains how CO2 could be the important temperature driver in connection with fig 4 and 5. Funny thing is, “the whole world” is watching this blog. If no one here,[…]can show anything really wrong… who can?
Frank, you’ve hit on it. On another thread I pointed out the utility that the Warmers bring to the debate: It comes from when they say nothing or obfuscate with empty words, deflecting with distractions, but no substance.
Watch for that ‘negative space’ of their arguments and postings. The emptiness. That tells you where the gold is. You, sir, have struck gold.
I hope things will be like i the good old days, when science was about exploring the universe. It was SO nice, those where the days 🙂
And they will be again. I give it a decade at the most before nature puts the lie to AGW and the world moves on to the next fad. PDO has flipped. Sun is quiet. Arctic and Antarctic air is very cold. Cold water is upwelling from he deep oceans. I would not be surprised to even see CO2 levels drop as more is sucked out in cold water and ice… Aren’t inflection points fun!