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.
The post is disheartening. I sincerely hoped that increased atmospheric CO2 would stave off the coming glaciation. Based on Lansner’s analysis, however, it appears that increasing CO2 emissions won’t do diddly.
Glaciations are no fun. Warmer is Better. It appears that Science, if it is to be useful, will have to find some other climate driver we can utilize to keep the globe bathed in perpetual interglacial warmth.
Frank Perdicaro (10:12:49) :
I enjoyed your non sequiteurs. I hope you don’t mind if I add a few.
> First human trick: Switch to an absolute temperature scale
Huh? I see only a scale relative to some baseline. Frank did use Kelvins instead of degrees Celcius, but that’s perfectly reasonable and even preferable.
> Second human trick: Years are a human construction. If there is a signal
independent of human activity, setting the peak points of the signal as
zero points is valid idea. (No humans were around in the past to change
CO2 concentrations, so this is valid).
Except for figure 1, he did that. BTW, aren’t years an astronomical construction? Various popes and astronomers have spent a lot of time trying to sync calendars with Earth’s orbit. The Gregorian calendar at 365.2424 days is pretty good, but the Russian one at 365.2422 days is even better.
> This is basically the same trick as
describing a circle as having pi radians instead of 360 degrees.
The notion of 360 degrees is an arbitrary human assignment.
On my polar graph paper, circles have 2 x pi radians. Again, he’s not using degrees, he’s using Kelvins.
> 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.
It looks more like a sawtooth than something I’d expect from an elliptical orbit, even one with an extremly high eccentricity. You’ve rendered Kepler and Occam speechless, which will be proven when they don’t post here.
> Oh, and it looks like we all better move to warmer parts of the earth.
You first. I’ll follow 3.14159 degrees later.
foinavon (15:15:46) :
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.
Ah yes, the ‘attack the messenger’, appeal to authority, and endless flogging of ‘only peer reviewed counts – especially if it is our reviewers’ begins. BORING.
I don’t give one whit about your endless flogging. 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.
@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?
Michael .. an interesting thought but I think you are forgetting the law of partial pressures. Remember the phoney device where you resealed a half empty pop bottle then pressurized it with air to keep it carbonated, guess what the CO2 still came out of solution because of the law of partial pressures. You have to think of a way to maintain the physical pressure on the contained ice sample to keep the gasses in solution. The paper I quoted by J.J.Drake actually age dated the O2 in the ice and CO2 using the 18O concentration and they found a difference of between 1000 and 7000 years with the CO2 level dropping as the age difference increased.
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).
I suspect that the rises and drops in the CO2 steady states are due to changes in the biotic CO2 influxes. When it gets colder, the ability of plants to fix CO2 drops. This is more pronounced at altitude and as you near the poles.
Let use take a mountain. Trees and plants grow up to the tree line, mineralization and trapping carbon in the soil.
When it gets colder, the treeline drops a thousand feet. The result is less CO2 being fixed; hence a higher steady state level of CO2.
Now we have a warming spell. The ice melts and the frozen top soil is carried down the mountain. It takes many centuries for the trees to begin their climb up the mountain, VERY slowly. First lichen colonize the rocks, then moss, then grass, than scrub, and only after a long time can trees gain a purchase. The carbon is only rapidly fixed in a diverse and mature ecosystem, and in this context you might want to take note that there is more living organic matter below the surface of the soil than there is above it. The mass of a tress roots is greater than its branches.
Ultimately, whatever the science or facts or arguments or models and equations, I am with English Phil (16:35:08) :
Clearly temperatures have fluctuated in the past; so what’s the big deal now?
Mary Hinge (15:24:54) said:
“He must learn that climate science is not the simplistic two dimensional process he thinks it is.”
It appears that the CO2 advocates are more likely to believe in a single simplistic cause for recent warming. Although they give a quick mention to the myriad of factors affecting climate, they do an about face and point to the linear correlation of CO2 and temperature over the past 30 years as their main proof. They ignore time periods when the relationship is not linear.
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. Frank’s analysis here is much more in depth, and in my opinion more accurate.
@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
Michael D Smith (16:15:39) : I can’t think of a device with which to do that off hand, but…
Drilling mud is used to maintain pressure at depth in gas and oil wells to prevent blowouts. I think maintaining pressure is ‘a solved problem’. All you need is a drill bit that has a sealable pressure vessel on the end. Not sure how to do that one…
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…
E.M.Smith (16:35:15) :
P2O2 (15:15:12) :
1) when the Earth switched over from the Hot to the Freeze epoch, and why?
2) how much closer to the Sun the Earth should be now to be in a state of climatic equilibrium favorable to us (with summer/winter cycles and w/o glacial/interglacial periods)?
P2O2, I took your questions to mean “what would stop our present Interglacial from becoming a glacial” when an equal interpretation could be “We are in an Ice Epoch of multiple glacial / interglacial cycles; what would get us out of the whole Epoch?”
If the second of those was your question, then the answer seems to be “We are already on our way”. We have transited a galactic arm (that even correlates with a time lag with ice epochs) and our present ice epoch is on the way out. Unfortunately, it could take a few millions years to do so… Geologic time scales are, um, er, different 😉
See: http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
for more on that. There is a particularly nice graph a ways down showing galactic arms, ice epochs, etc.
Unfortunately, by the time anything of interest happens all of human civilization will be long gone, either from our extinction or because we are still subject to evolution and will have become something else! Aren’t geologic time scales fun?
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.
Sweet, you have all my support!
Jeg elsker dig!
Your wife.
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!).
A new car company with no emission products. The insanity is just getting underway.
————————————————————-
Obama Motors!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8027
On top of that, the U.S. government is requiring automakers to make cars that very few people can afford or even want. Pretty soon we’ll have a new auto company, Obama Motors!
Isn’t it communism when the central government gets to decide what must be manufactured?
The next politician who, like Al Gore, tells you that the Earth is facing a global warming calamity because of greenhouse gas emissions, should be voted out of office and into the nearest soup kitchen line.
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.
Bill Illis (16:53:11) :
The changes in CO2 concentration is better explained through absorption by the oceans rather than plants.
Um, has not the ocean plants? I see the two topics (plants and oceans) as joined at the hip and not separable…
BTW, I have this nagging suspicion that the differential heats of water, vaporization, and crystallization ought to come into this somehow… just can’t put my finger on it. Faster warming from heat out of ocean as steam / vapor? Slower in from heat transport as water? Heat transport from ice absorbing 80 cal / gm from rain at 1 cal / gm. Anyone here a ChemE? They deal with these heat transport problems all the time…
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…
Robert Wood (16:58:59) :
Ultimately, whatever the science or facts or arguments or models and equations, I am with English Phil (16:35:08) :
Clearly temperatures have fluctuated in the past; so what’s the big deal now?
Oh, I’d guess about a $Trillion+ taken from your pocket and put into the Friends of AlGore & Hansen fund… starting with the recent $140 Million minimum with much more to come. At least, that’s the big deal to me 8-\
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.
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.
Mike
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 !!!!
Jim Steele (09:54:25) :
Excellent. It is exactly this analysis that made me a skeptic when I was teaching Global Warming to my students.
Exactly the ‘not understoody why’ that I saw in the UCSD course.
If I remember right, it was a mystery. Why does the CO2 lag temp rise when coming out of Ice Age?
I suspect that melting Ice Caps help keep the upper layers of the oceans cold and enable it to retain the CO2 in solution.
When cooling after a Warm Period, the upper layers of the oceans readily take on CO2, but would they sink or stay afloat (a density question)?
Anyone?