Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
HenryP August 15, 2011 at 2:48 am
I find that most people, when responding to what I or others have written, do at least try to make their response, however misguided, have at least some relevance to the initial post. Not only is this a matter of courtesy, but it does help to support the impression that the respondent had at least understood something about that to which he is responding.This practice, however, appears to have entirely passed you by: your response has no relevance, none whatsoever, to what I had previously written in this thread, which was concerned solely with the attribution to human actions of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
However, to address the points you do make:
Firstly, your second paragraph misunderstands the basis for what is referred to as climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. This problem has attracted much research effort and numerous papers have provided estimates of this climate sensitivity using various methods, of which paleoclimatic data from the glacial/interglacial transitions is probably the most important. Most papers suggest the most likely figure to be 3degC. The IPCC was guided by those results, not the “the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gas(es) noted since 1750” as you suggest.
Secondly, you correctly state, “if an increase in green house gases is to blame for the warming, it … should be that minimum temperatures should be rising faster than maxima and mean temperatures” That is, of course, true, though I would hesitate to go as far you do and assert that, “That is what would prove a causal link..” Demonstrating that minimum temperatures are increasing the most rapidly does not provide proof of global warming: it is supporting evidence and no more. Science does not deal in proofs.
You then refer to an article to which you linked earlier and of which you are apparently the author, namely, http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
that seeks to test the above hypothesis by resort to just 15 weather stations from around the world apparently sent in to you by interested individuals. A more ludicrous way of deluding yourself is hard to imagine: you are merely inviting people to send in counter example to the trend, ie. to find examples somewhere where minimum temperature increases have not exceeded maximum.
Even so, please give full details of where to find the data that you post for Easter Island (I choose that merely because it is an interesting place) so that we can check your calculation.
But if you are actually interested in what has happened (rather than playing silly games) with respect to minimum and maximum temperature increases, then you are in luck, since NOAA have just published the results for the contiguous USA. They show that in the USA minimum temperatures HAVE been increasing faster than maximum temperature, so according to you that clinches it: “global warming is proven”. I’ll merely say that this result supports the theory of global warming by enhanced greenhouse gases.
Here’s the links:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
and
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/climate/LWX_1981-2010_Normals_Website_pdf_version.pdf
and here are the two main graphs helpfully placed side by side by Scott Mandia:
http://profmandia.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/state_annualmaxmin_720-e1311177971725.jpg?w=600&h=260
in
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/global-warming-heat-waves-yes-rollercoasters-no/
“You should check into the reasoning behind the 800 year time lag.”
It takes a long time for carbon dioxide to be released from the oceans; it takes a *long* time of sustained temperature change (either up or down) to make any significant change in atmospheric CO2. Think thousands of years. That’s why I mentioned the Eemian interglacial. It was warmer than present temperatures, and the warmth lasted for thousands of years. Yet, CO2 levels topped off at about 300 ppmv. If Salby and Bastardi were correct, CO2 levels in the Eemian should have been a lot higher than now. There was plenty of time for the oceans to overturn and release more CO2 than now. If the Eemian couldn’t do it, how can temps during this interglacial have pushed CO2 to over 390 ppmv, with the last 110 ppmv coming in a little over a hundred years? Where’s your skepticism?
“There is your monotonic year over year increase.”
Where? It’s not in the temperature record, anywhere. It’s never been predicted by a climate scientist, ever. So where is it? How does the fact that the oceans take a long time to release CO2 when temps increase (or absorb it when temps go down) support the idea that temperature is allegedly supposed to go up monotonically if AGW is correct?
“Still, temps can go up and CO2 right (behind) with it. Why not?”
And temps can (and do) go down due to year to year variability and yet CO2 is still going up unabated. Temps are not the cause of the CO2 increase.
As I stated before, the evidence, whether long term proxies or short term instrumental/sat data, falsifies Salby’s and now Bastardi’s claims about the source of the recent CO2 rise.
Blade:
“CO2 present into the atmosphere *must* work immediately with no lag (that’s the box AGW is in).”
It does work right away (though the amplifying feedbacks take years), but it is not the only thing affecting yearly temps. The forcing from the steady small increase in CO2 every year can be and is overwhelmed by year to year variability from things like ENSO or volcanoes. Projections are for about a .2C increase (on average for the whole century, it’s not a prediction for *every* decade) per decade, which comes to on average a .02 C trend per year. Now clearly we know that a La Nina or an El Nino can easily swamp that .02C in any year, as can a volcano. That’s why no climate scientist is (or ever was) calling for a monotonic increase in temps, with each year warmer than the last. You will have ups and downs from year to year even with a steadily increasing background trend. It’s the long term trends that count. So no, no box.
For those who would like to learn a bit more about ice cores and CO2 as well as sources of CO2 to the atmosphere, I think Dr. Alley does a nice job with this video series: http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/segment/1
segment/3, /4 and /5 deals with sources of CO2 in our atmosphere, research by the US Air Force of atmospheric gases and their heat trapping effects, as well as what ice core data show.
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:10 am
“You should check into the reasoning behind the 800 year time lag.”
It takes a long time for carbon dioxide to be released from the oceans; it takes a *long* time of
sustained temperature change (either up or down) to make any significant change in atmospheric CO2. Think thousands of years
==================================================================
Robert, I don’t buy the 800 year lag………………
….assuming that there is any accuracy at all in measuring CO2 gas bubbles in ice
When you reverse engineer it…..come at it the other way…and start questioning why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast
…..it becomes clearer…..it’s biology
There is an instant plant/phyto/biological response when CO2 levels start to rise…
….that rapid response does not slow down until something else becomes limiting
….and that can take ~800 years, with an error bar of around 300 years
I should have added segment/6 since that segment deals specifically with how we know that the CO2 increase we see in the atmosphere is a result of human activities.
“Robert, I don’t buy the 800 year lag………………”
Yet you spend the rest of your post trying to show how the 800 year lag is biological in origin.
“When you reverse engineer it…..come at it the other way…and start questioning why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast.”
They weren’t reduced fast at all. The only thing that has been fast is the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, with temperature swings from glacial to interglacial of 6-7 C, the range of CO2 change was less than the increase we have already seen the last century or so with about .8C of warming. Nothing biological happened in the last thousand years that could possibly have caused that increase in CO2.
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 8:24 am
They weren’t reduced fast at all.
===========================================================
Of course it is, don’t be silly………………
There’s no claim of an 800 year lag in CO2 levels dropping
The claim of the 800 year lag in CO2 levels is ——following temperature
That the process is slow, that it takes a long time for the oceans etc to turn over and release CO2, etc etc etc
I don’t buy it……
There is an immediate response from plants, bacteria, algae, dinos, etc, they grow faster until something else becomes limiting
Slioch
your response has no relevance, none whatsoever, to what I had previously written in this thread,
Response
Perhaps I did not see your earlier responses but I am reacting to the incorrect statements you are making sunbsequently and I am claiming that you have no scientific actual evidence to support it
Slioch
Most papers suggest the most likely figure to be 3degC.
Response
How were these tests done and where are all the measurements’ results?
Obviously you have not read the IPCC report 2007 concerning this matter where it is clear to me that they are looking at everything from behind the facts?
Slioch
You then refer to an article to which you linked earlier and of which you are apparently the author, namely, http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
that seeks to test the above hypothesis by resort to just 15 weather stations from around the world apparently sent in to you by interested individuals. A more ludicrous way of deluding yourself is hard to imagine: you are merely inviting people to send in counter example to the trend, ie. to find examples somewhere where minimum temperature increases have not exceeded maximum.
Even so, please give full details of where to find the data that you post for Easter Island (I choose that merely because it is an interesting place) so that we can check your calculation.
Response
Just 15 stations
but cleverly chosen by me, because 70% of earth is covered by oceans + I balanced the tables by latitudes (it appears that nobody, including yourself, has so far volunteered to help me)
to represent the whole of the earth, giving me almost the same global average increase also reported by others
UK and USA data could be compromised; I won’t even go there. There is probably too much money at stake,
as is clear from this report here:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
If you want the Easter Island data, you have to give me an address? (remember you will get 12 Xcell files, one for each month of the year, going back in time)
Slioch
But if you are actually interested in what has happened, rather than playing silly games
Response
It looks like there are people here who liked my game and have already picked up on it,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/14/its-not-about-feedback/
“Of course it is, don’t be silly”
Nowhere in the ice core data or in the instrumental data has CO2 dropped quickly. The entire range of CO2 change for the last 400,000 years is smaller than the recent rise, even though the temperature swing during that 400,000 years was about an order or magnitude bigger.
“There’s no claim of an 800 year lag in CO2 levels dropping”
Sure there is. The lag goes in both directions. The oceans take as long to absorb the increased CO2 as it does to outgas it. Both are a very slow process. This is basic, and well known.
“I don’t buy it”
Not relevant. The facts are what they are, whether you buy them or not.
“There is an immediate response from plants, bacteria, algae, dinos, etc, they grow faster until something else becomes limiting”
CO2 is not the limiting factor. It is absurd to invoke a biological cause for the rapid CO2 increase of the last 150 years. Where is your evidence of a recent trend in biomass?
Robert, there is an immediate response when CO2 levels are elevated in green houses, plankton cultures, bacteria cultures, diatom cultures, aquariums, algae cultures, etc etc
Of course CO2 is limiting……..
What were CO2 levels prior to plants evolving? grasses evolving? etc
Of course plants, bacteria, etc are the primary consumers of CO2.
========================================================================
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 8:57 am
It is absurd to invoke a biological cause for the rapid CO2 increase of the last 150 years.
=======================================================================
LOL….what’s absurd is for you to try to twist it so it sounds like I ever said that
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 8:57 am
CO2 is not the limiting factor
=========================================================
rotfl….. and every pot head has to wait 800 years for their pot plants to grow faster
Julienne Stroeve says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-720016
I acrtually did have an e-mail exchange with Alley where I asked him to tell me exactly how much cooling is caused by the carbon dioxide.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
He could not give me an answer….
“Of course CO2 is limiting…”
It is not *the* limiting factor natural ecosystems.
“What were CO2 levels prior to plants evolving? grasses evolving? etc”
What possible relevance does that have to CO2 levels in the last hundreds of thousands of years? The evolution of photosynthesis happened billions of years ago.
“Of course plants, bacteria, etc are the primary consumers of CO2.”
And they are not responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years. There is an annual cycle of CO2 rise and fall related to Northern Hemisphere seasons, but the effect is only a few ppmv difference. Where is the big trend in plant biomass over the last 150 years that could account for a 120 ppmv increase in CO2?
“LOL….what’s absurd is for you to try to twist it so it sounds like I ever said that”
This is what you said:
“When you reverse engineer it…..come at it the other way…and start questioning why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast
…..it becomes clearer…..it’s biology”
I twisted nothing. You claimed the rise in CO2 in the last 150 years is biological in nature. The claim is preposterous. Biological sinks and sources have hardly changed over that period. How could they have released so much CO2 in such a short period of time, and why did they not release anything close to that much when temps were higher and the temp rise was sustained for thousands of years in the Eemian interglacial?
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 9:45 am
I twisted nothing. You claimed the rise in CO2 in the last 150 years is biological in nature. The claim is preposterous.
======================================================
Robert, I apologize…….you weren’t trying to twist my words after all…..you really are that dense
“You claimed the rise in CO2 in the last 150 years is biological in nature”
No I did not………I have a problem with the 800 year lag……which has nothing to do with why CO2 levels increased.
I’m talking about an 800 year lag in CO2 following temperature……
…..I’ve said nothing about why CO2 levels increased
When you reverse it, come at it from the other direction, what causes CO2 levels to fall…..
….the process of reducing CO2 levels would be the same process that causes CO2 levels to lag behind rising temperatures
“No I did not”
You said so explicitly.
” I’m talking about an 800 year lag in CO2 following temperature……
…..I’ve said nothing about why CO2 levels increased”
You said it was because of biology. If you want to withdraw that claim, go right ahead, but don’t pretend you didn’t say it. Here it is again:
“When you reverse engineer it…..come at it the other way…and start questioning why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast
…..it becomes clearer…..it’s biology”
Yeah, plants take in CO2, but there is no trend in plant biomass that could possibly explain the rise of CO2 of the last 150 years.
——————————————————————
“……which has nothing to do with why CO2 levels increased.”
It (the 800 year lag, which really only shows up when temp change are sustained over a long period of time) isn’t responsible for the increase over the last 150 years, true. Neither is biology, as you claim.
“When you reverse it, come at it from the other direction, what causes CO2 levels to fall…..”
The oceans go from a source to a carbon sink and take CO2 from the atmosphere as temperature falls. This process takes a very long time, just as the outgassing of CO2 takes a long time when temperature goes up. Right now, the oceans are a net sink even though temperature has risen, because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising so fast. From us.
…the operative word is “reduced”
try it again……………..
“…the operative word is “reduced””
When were CO2 levels reduced quickly (by quickly I mean at a rate near the rate of increase over the last 150 years)? There is no such reduction on record over the last half million years. I already explained that there is a well known yearly cycle with the rising trend where CO2 levels rise and fall as trees in the NH shed their leaves in the fall and winter and sprout new ones in the spring and summer, so surely you don’t mean that, since that change is only a few parts ppmv over the cycle. If you want to posit a biological cause for long term CO2 trends (on a decadal or centennial scale), you need to demonstrate a long term trend in biological activity and biomass sufficient to explain the change in CO2. You can’t extrapolate from short term fluxes.
Robert Murphy August 15, 2011 at 8:24 am
“They weren’t reduced fast at all. The only thing that has been fast is the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, with temperature swings from glacial to interglacial of 6-7 C, the range of CO2 change was less than the increase we have already seen the last century or so with about .8C of warming.”
Correct. The difference between what is happening now with respect to rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and ANYTHING that has happened in the last 800,000 years for which we have ice core evidence is staggering. This evidence shows that CO2 never increased during transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions at more than 30ppmv in 1000 years. They have now increased by that amount since 1996, about 15 years. That means that atmospheric CO2 is now increasing at a rate over SIXTY times faster than ever occurred naturally during the last 800,000 years for which detailed evidence exists. The present situation is unique.
That fact alone – in the absence of any other evidence – provides a very strong reason for concluding that the current rate is anthropogenic.
sorry….I don’t buy it
An 800 year lag from the time temperatures rise…..until CO2 starts to rise
Don’t buy it at all……………….
and trying to spin it to make it sound like I said biology caused the rise in CO2 is lame……
Slioch:
At August 15, 2011 at 11:30 am you say:
“The difference between what is happening now with respect to rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and ANYTHING that has happened in the last 800,000 years for which we have ice core evidence is staggering.
[snip]
That fact alone – in the absence of any other evidence – provides a very strong reason for concluding that the current rate is anthropogenic.”
NO! That fact alone – in the absence of any other evidence – provides a very strong reason for concluding that the ice core data are wrong and the stomata data are right.
But, considering other evidence (e.g. Beck’ data) indicates that both the ice core data and the stomata data cannot be used to compare to modern measurements such as those obtained from Mauna Loa.
Please try not to post blatant nonsense.
Richard
“sorry….I don’t buy it
An 800 year lag from the time temperatures rise…..until CO2 starts to rise
Don’t buy it at all……………….”
You’ve proposed no *reason* that there shouldn’t have been a lag, other than “I don’t buy it”. Can you do better than that?
“and trying to spin it to make it sound like I said biology caused the rise in CO2 is lame……”
You said so explicitly. Pretending that you didn’t write what you wrote is what’s lame. And you ducked my question: When were CO2 levels reduced quickly (by quickly I mean at a rate near the rate of increase over the last 150 years)? There were periods of slow falling, caused by the oceans becoming a carbon sink and absorbing carbon dioxide. There are no records of a precipitous fall in CO2.
The ice core record shows no change in CO2 levels (of either sign) anywhere near as fast as the increase we’ve had in the last 150 years. For instance, in the last thousand years, CO2 levels at the height of the MWP and the low of the LIA were separated by about ten ppmv. What changed in the last 150 years that could explain the recent rise? You claimed it was biology (plants), though you can’t seem to formulate an actual argument for how it explains recent trends (or past ones either). Care to take a shot at it?
Robert Murphy says:
August 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm
You’ve proposed no *reason* that there shouldn’t have been a lag, other than “I don’t buy it”. Can you do better than that?
“and trying to spin it to make it sound like I said biology caused the rise in CO2 is lame……”
You said so explicitly. Pretending that you didn’t write what you wrote is what’s lame
==================================================================
Robert, you act like other people can’t read……
………I said explicitly
“…the operative word is “reduced”
No matter how high CO2 levels were in the past, even in the thousands ppm, they went down.
Rapidly……….
======================================================================
Robert Murphy says: You’ve proposed no *reason* that there shouldn’t have been a lag, other than “I don’t buy it”. Can you do better than that?
=======================================================================
“There is an instant plant/phyto/biological response when CO2 levels start to rise…
….that rapid response does not slow down until something else becomes limiting”
“rotfl….. and every pot head has to wait 800 years for their pot plants to grow faster”
“Robert, there is an immediate response when CO2 levels are elevated in green houses, plankton cultures, bacteria cultures, diatom cultures, aquariums, algae cultures, etc etc”
“Of course plants, bacteria, etc are the primary consumers of CO2.”
Richard S Courtney August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I am prepared to discuss matters with people who at least are prepared to accept well-established evidence, even if they do not understand it. You are unable to accept any evidence that conflicts with your delusions, even to the extent on having to depend upon ludicrous nonsense such as Beck’s CO2 misinformation.
I really can see no point in responding to you.
“Robert, you act like other people can’t read……
………I said explicitly
“…the operative word is “reduced””
And your explanation was biology. Again, you said:
“When you reverse engineer it…..come at it the other way…and start questioning why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast
…..it becomes clearer…..it’s biology”
Biology is being promoted as the answer as to “why CO2 levels were so high, and were reduced so fast”; it was supposed to answer *both* increases and decreases. Stop pretending you didn’t write what you wrote.
Since the issue of the thread is the recent rise in CO2, there would be no reason to bring up biological causes for a reduction in CO2 in the deep past if you didn’t also think that there was a biological cause for the recent rapid rise in CO2.
“No matter how high CO2 levels were in the past, even in the thousands ppm, they went down.
Rapidly……….”
Not even close to as fast as the rate of increase we’ve had the last 150 years. You’re talking about changes that took place over millions of years. And it has been many millions of years since those changes in CO2 levels had a biological cause. Plants and photosynthesis have been around for a very long time.
““There is an instant plant/phyto/biological response when CO2 levels start to rise…
….that rapid response does not slow down until something else becomes limiting””
This has nothing to do with the documented lag in CO2 to temperature change.
““rotfl….. and every pot head has to wait 800 years for their pot plants to grow faster””
Still, nothing to do with the documented lag in CO2 response to temperature changes.
““Robert, there is an immediate response when CO2 levels are elevated in green houses, plankton cultures, bacteria cultures, diatom cultures, aquariums, algae cultures, etc etc””
Again, nothing to do with the documented lag in CO2 response to temperature changes.
“Of course plants, bacteria, etc are the primary consumers of CO2.”
Of no relevance to the documented lag in CO2 response to temperature changes.
Now, try again and explain WHY those above points are supposed to preclude a lag in CO2 response to temperature change. You have as yet not formulated an argument. You have to show how this response by plants to an increase in CO2 (there is slight growth in plant biomass if CO2 is the limiting factor) means that CO2 is not outgassed by the oceans slowly when temps go up, causing a lag in response.