CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages

Is the temperature in the recent past from the ice core or other readings? If it can be compared to the temperature peaks recorded in the other interglacials, then I conclude that one of two things is true:
1. The current interglacial is naturally cooler than prior interglacials and we will resume cooling soon (in geologic terms).
2. The current interglacial has not achieved its natural interglacial peak temperature and can be expected to warm another degree or so due to non-anthropogenic causes.
It appears that the Vostok core results are generally accepted. I would be more comfortable if samples from other areas confirmed the Vostok temperature/CO2 record.
In particular, is there another method to determine the maximum temperature achieved in the prior interglacials?
It has always bothered me that I do not see a discussion on when the current interglacial warming (natural) starts to be dominated by anthropogenic warming.

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?

Gore’s above-and-below two-chart Vostok data presentation and the fabricated hockey stick curve are the two main things that shocked me two years ago, when I noticed that Gore had (1) reversed cause and effect for the Vostok temperature and CO2 data and (2) plotted two different variables on one chart to make it look like temperatures have risen off-scale during the short period at the end of his chart where he was plotting tree ring data instead of surface temperature measurements. Remember that scene in his movie where he climbed a tall ladder to emphasize the panic-inducing exaggeration?
The Mann-Gore hokey hockey stick schtick has been thoroughly discredited for some time now and most climate scientists also acknowledge that satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature are much more accurate than Hansen’s buggered ground station temperature measurements, which Gore gleefully used.
However, Hansen and Gore’s Vostok cause and effect reversal, though commented on frequently, never seemed to me to capture the attention it deserves – until now. I was outraged three years ago, and even more so now that Hansen and Gore are still trying to deceive people on the simple cause and effect question. If Hansen and Gore had ever been willing to have an honest debate about this I would have given them the benefit of doubt instead of having to conclude that they were deliberately trying to deceive everybody.
I do note the very low temperature crossover of the temperature/CO2 curves. If that had ever been the basis of Hansen and Gore’s arguments I would have given them some credit for at least trying to explain it. Obviously they are not using that to support their argument because they know it doesn’t hold water. Whatever mechanism might explain this at six deg C below the interglacial temperatures of the last few thousand years can’t credibly be used to make a case for global warming predictions from anthropogenic CO2 now. Whenever I see the initials AGW, I feel that really must stand for Al Gore Warming, since there seems to be more hot air from him than there is from any anthropogenic CO2 global warming.

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?

“Some people believe that 90% of co2 has a life of around 50 years and the remaining 10% stays around for much longer. ”
As the cosmogenic production of 14C precedes its peak in life-forms by 60 years this has to be near the limit of residence time, the extreme outlier.
Spencer, here at WUWT a year ago, compared the 13C:12C variance of MLO seasonal signal with that of the long-term trend under F-Test. The graphs were identical. Keeling believed the seasonal signal biogenic and the trend anthropogenic.
Both surmises cannot be true, therefore the anthropogenic signal is not visible at all. Looking at the October minimum in the seasonal signal leads me to question its origin as well.
Who could scrub the effect of both fluences and also produce the seasonal signal? How about the temperature controlled partial-pressure of CO2 in water? 40 years ago that answer was orthodox Earth Science re: the Carbon Cycle.
Progress? Progress? Don’t talk about progress. My daughter is $55 trillion in debt before her first birthday.

Randall my experience tells me that the precision claimed is unrealistically good and the CO2 measurements are likely biased low. I hope to look into this further.
Then I hope to see a paper from you like this one on that subject. We need another look at what Jaworowski claimed. I too, and I guess Frank Lansner and many here, also suspect the CO2 record levels, but don’t have the means etc to investigate.

“notice that CO2 seems to always hit the same level then plunge. That kind of consistent peak argues for a mechanism that stops the rise and the ‘flat top’ on the curve in Fig. 2 also argues for ‘hitting the ceiling’”
Very nice. Must be an EE.

Anybody have CO2 data for the GISP2 Ice core so we can see how the Northern Pole behaves (at least for the one cycle)?

It was my goal with this writing, to give a useful tool in the debate. A tool I have been looking for myself. If some of you super fine debaters will use some of this, honestly I will be very happy.
Thankyou all for your feedback!!!!! Really.
Yes, what I show is truly banal, and some of it is not at all news. Just a tool to illustrate the obvious so simple that it hopefully will break some stonewalls down in the debates.
Thankyou Anthony for the courage to puplish my writings.
@Bob Buchanan (09:04:33) :
“ how was Graph 2 created? “
Thank you for interest! Graph 2 illustrates average values for the big tops from the Vostok data. This way for instance a typical AGW-argument about “cherry picking” can be avoided. For instance, if you ´have 4 values for a CO2 point from 4 tops, you take the average value. This gives a middle-curve including all cherries.
@Phils dad
The max values from fig 5. just illustrates the CO2 concentrations highest for the Vostokdata.
@Luis Dias (09:39:26) :
“Allegedly, CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, but in Fig.2 we see temperature peaking exactly the same time that CO2 peaks.”
It was in no way my intention to prove that CO2 lags temperature, because this is commonly accepted long ago by al parts in the debate. (The graphs are sligthly too rough to show it 100% clearly)
I wrote :” The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid”
When the heating period has been only short, temperature dive seems faster. This could imply, that the slowing of cooling might be explained by accumulated heat in oceans and more – so it seems that cooling pace might be controlled by other things than CO2. Unless that it’s a coicidence that longer varmperiod leads to slower cooling phases…? Hardly 🙂

Antony,
Your graphs would be more effective with crossbars i.e. x level of CO2 causes temperatures to rise while a little later the same x of CO2 causes temperatures to fall.

Very nice Frank, I had not seen an analysis of the delta between CO2 and Temperature on the falling edge.
Regarding your final hypothesis: “It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean.
If this were true, wouldn’t the oceans tend to dampen the leading edge (rise) in temperature as well? I’m assuming that the ocean absorbs heat at the same rate that it gives it up, but perhaps this is not the case.
Thank you for the enlightening article.