A new paper in Nature suggests CO2 leads temperature, but has some serious problems

This is an attempt to redefine the graph made famous by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth that showed temperature leading CO2.

EDC

From a press release embargoed until 1PM EST 4/4:

Work that may clarify the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and temperature at the end of the last ice age is presented in this week’s Nature. The study reveals that rising temperatures were preceded by CO2 increases during the last deglaciation, contrary to prior findings derived from ice cores that were thought to represent larger global patterns. These results support an important role for CO2 in driving global climate change.

Antarctic ice-core records indicate that CO2 may have influenced climate changes during the Pleistocene ice ages, which began around 2.6 million years ago and ended about 11,700 years ago. However, the exact role of CO2 in producing climate changes has remained unclear, partly because ice-core records only reflect local temperatures. To better understand the relationship between CO2 and global climate change, Jeremy Shakun and colleagues reconstruct global surface temperatures for the last deglaciation. They show that rising temperatures are correlated with, and generally lag behind, increasing levels of CO2.

The reconstructed global temperatures were produced using proxy records of temperature variability, such as those recorded in planktonic microorganisms. Anomalies in the correlations, such as in the Antarctic where the CO2 changes lag behind temperature, are explained by redistribution of heat between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, the authors suggest.

==============================================================

Here is the long form press release (h/t to junkscience.com):

Rising CO2 levels linked to global warming during last deglaciation

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Many scientists have long suspected that rising levels of carbon dioxide and the global warming that ended the last Ice Age were somehow linked, but establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and global warming from the geologic record has remained difficult.

A new study, funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal Nature, identifies this relationship and provides compelling evidence that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming.

Lead author Jeremy Shakun, who conducted much of the research as a doctoral student at Oregon State University, said the key to understanding the role of CO2 is to reconstruct globally averaged temperature changes during the end of the last Ice Age, which contrasts with previous efforts that only compared local temperatures in Antarctica to carbon dioxide levels.

“Carbon dioxide has been suspected as an important factor in ending the last Ice Age, but its exact role has always been unclear because rising temperatures reflected in Antarctic ice cores came before rising levels of CO2,” said Shakun, who is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-doctoral Fellow at Harvard University and Columbia University.

“But if you reconstruct temperatures on a global scale – and not just examine Antarctic temperatures – it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming, and this means the global greenhouse effect had an important role in driving up global temperatures and bringing the planet out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun added.

Here is what the researchers think happened.

Small changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun affected the amount of sunlight striking the northern hemisphere, melting ice sheets that covered Canada and Europe. That fresh water flowed off of the continent into the Atlantic Ocean, where it formed a lid over the sinking end of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation – a part of a global network of currents that brings warm water up from the tropics and today keeps Europe temperate despite its high latitudes.

The ocean circulation warms the northern hemisphere at the expense of the south, the researchers say, but when the fresh water draining off the continent at the end of the last Ice Age entered the North Atlantic, it essentially put the brakes on the current and disrupted the delivery of heat to the northern latitudes.

“When the heat transport stops, it cools the north and heat builds up in the Southern Hemisphere,” Shakun said. “The Antarctic would have warmed rapidly, much faster than the time it takes to get CO2 out of the deep sea, where it was likely stored.

“The warming of the Southern Ocean may have shifted the winds as well as melted sea ice, and eventually drawn the CO2 out of the deep water, and released it into the atmosphere,” Shakun said. “That, in turn, would have amplified warming on a global scale.”

The researchers constructed a record of global surface temperature from 80 temperature reconstructions spanning the end of the Ice Age and found that average temperature around the Earth correlated with – and generally lagged behind – rising levels of CO2.

Peter Clark, an Oregon State University scientist and co-author on the paper, said changes in solar radiation were the likely trigger for the series of effects that followed. His 2009 study, published in Science, confirmed an earlier theory that wobble in the Earth’s axis, which changes the amount of sunlight captured by Earth, first caused melting of the large northern ice sheets.

“It has long been known that Earth’s slow wobble is caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years,” said Clark, a professor in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences.

Shakun said there is “an enormous amount” of carbon sequestered in the deep ocean.

“The Southern Ocean is connected to all the deep ocean basins,” he pointed out, “so the most likely mechanisms to draw it out of the ocean were certainly there.”

The question now, the researchers say, is how human-generated carbon dioxide will affect the planet when there isn’t an ice age.

“CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun said, “and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond.”

“While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming,” Shakun added.

###

==============================================================

The paper is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html and named:

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard

Abstract:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than

global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

METHODS SUMMARY

The data set compiled in this study contains most published high-resolution

(median resolution, 200 yr), well-dated (n5636 radiocarbon dates) temperature

records from the last deglaciation (see Supplementary Information for the full

database). Sixty-seven records are from the ocean and are interpreted to reflect sea

surface temperatures, and the remaining 13 record air or lake temperatures on

land. All records span 18–11 kyr ago and,85% of them span 22–6.5 kyr ago. We

recalibrated all radiocarbon dates with the IntCal04 calibration (Supplementary

Information) and converted proxy units to temperature using the reservoir corrections

and proxy calibrations suggested in the original publications. An exception

to this was the alkenone records, which were recalibrated with a global

core-top calibration41. The data were projected onto a 5u35u grid, linearly

interpolated to 100-yr resolution and combined as area-weighted averages. We

used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models

and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties

or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set. In

particular, the records are strongly biased towards ocean margins where high

sedimentation rates facilitate the development of high-resolution records. Given

these issues, we focus on the temporal evolution of temperature through the

deglaciation rather than on its amplitude of change. The global temperature stack

is not particularly sensitive to interpolation resolution, areal weighting, the

number of proxy records, radiocarbon calibration, infilling of missing data or

proxy type. Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations

can be found in ref. 25.

The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information.

Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of

the paper at www.nature.com/nature.

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Information (9.2M)
    This file contains Supplementary Text and Data, Supplementary Figures 1-30, Supplementary Tables 1-3, additional References and Supplementary Appendices 1-2.

Excel files

  1. Supplementary Data (2.4M)
    This file contains Supplementary Data.

==============================================================

Don Easterbrook has some initial thoughts on the Nature paper.

The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data.  Here are a few examples:

1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes, even though 95% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect is from water vapor. In order to seriously consider CO2 as a causal mechanism, you first need to prove that very tiny increases in CO2 do indeed increase atmospheric water vapor.  However, during recent warming, purported to be caused by increased CO2, atmospheric water vapor has not gone up, it has decreased slightly. CO2 by itself cannot cause significant warming because there is little of it in the atmosphere (0.038%) and CO2 accounts for only a few percent of the GHG effect.

2. They assume that the AMOC is the only driver of climate change, totally ignoring the influence of the Pacific Ocean, which covers almost half of the Earth’s surface and we can see in the modern data a strong influence of ENSO as a driver of climate changes (actually a closer correlation than the AMOC). They offer no evidence that the AMOC is the main and only driver of climate change.

3. They assume a hemispheric ‘see-saw’ of climate changes in which the North and South Hemispheres are out of phase, despite strong evidence in both hemisphere that climate changes were closely simultaneous, not out of phase with one another (Easterbrook, 2011).

4. The dismiss all other causal mechanisms by simply stating that they are only of ‘regional importance’, similar to the tactic of dismissing the MWP and Little Ice Age as only regional climate changes, not global. They also totally ignore the complete lack of correlation of CO2 with Holocene climate changes. They don’t even mention the very strong correlation of variation in 10Be and 14C with climate changes, suggesting a solar cause.

================================================================

The Antarctic Ice core graph is particularly troublesome.

Figure2

In the long scale graph at top, I pointed out that the resolution of the temperature reconstruction diminished as the sample got older. Willis responded to my query with this:

The resolution for temperature drops, as does the CO2 resolution, because the ice is getting more compressed and so there is more and more time between equally spaced samples. Here’s one of my old graphs of the same data, showing the same phenomenon:

co2-temp-willis

Where I think they go wrong is the claim that they can somehow reconstruct, not just the couple thousands of years of temperature that Mann claimed, but nearly a million years of temperature … and that the timelines for the two wouldn’t have errors.

My rule of thumb about these kinds of things is, no error bars … no science.

w.

Other rebuttals are in the works. I will add to this posting as they develop.

Pat Michaels writes to junkscience.com:

I am very unexcited about this. I have always thought that the timing of carbon dioxide changes and warming/cooling is pretty much irrelevant… What is interesting about this latest “finding” is that it demonstrates, yet again, the unfalsifiability of climate change “science”. The standard argument on the ice cores has been that temperature preceding carbon dioxide changes is simply evidence for positive feedback rather than lack of forcing. Now the argument will revert back to the other way around — that CO2 causes all the major pleistocene (which we are still in — see Greenland) climate fluctuations.

About that carbon dioxide–it’s just another attempt to explain the true mystery of climate change, which is why major glaciations ever go away.

My mantra is that “it’s not the heat, it’s the sensitivity”, which is obviously overestimated in climate models, for a variety of reasons that should be obvious.

Tom V. Segalstad Associated Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, at the

University of Oslo writes:

There are some serious problems with ice cores.

I’ll be surprised if the new Nature paper cites our paper by Jaworowski,  Segalstad & Ono (1992): Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? in the professional peer-reviewed Elsevier journal “Science of the total  environment”, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284 (1992). The paper is available on my  website here: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

There’s a follow-up paper (abstract) on the stable isotope temperature measurement technique in ice cores here: http://www.co2web.info/aig.pdf

I checked the references of the Shakun et al paper published today, and the paper Segalstad mentions is not part of the references section. I guess it was too inconvenient to mention.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 1 vote
Article Rating
233 Comments
LC Kirk, Perth
April 4, 2012 6:16 pm

Surely we must have found a better way of estimating global atmospheric paleo CO2 concentrations by now than looking at squashed gas bubbles in ice cores, particularly as CO2 is such an intimate part of the plant and animal lifecycle, as preserved in the fossil and microfossil record? I know there are other variables that impact on the health, development and fosilisation of life forms (temperature, food availability, poor preservation of sub-aerial fossils, etc.), but even so, you would think there might be some species of microscopic flora or fauna that was exquisitely sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentration and also inclined to drop into varved (dateable) lake sediments or even ice itself? Are we even looking?

cui bono
April 4, 2012 6:36 pm

So just to get this clear.
The N. Hemisphere warms without any reference to CO2.
This melts all the ice.
The meltwater flows south cutting off the warm upward flow from the S. Hemisphere…
.. thus causing the S. to warm and the S. oceans to emit CO2….
.. thus ‘amplifying a warming’ which had already wiped out the N. hemisphere ice sheets?
And all this to explain the embarrassing plain-as-day fact that warming precedes CO2 in the Antarctic records?
And BTW in this byzantine theory the warmth preceded the CO2 release, so now we can junk the anti-AGW idea that, er, warmth precedes a CO2 release?
And this happened once, at the end of the last Ice Age, never mind all the others?
Sledgehammer and nut come to mind. Particularly nut.
PS: Welcome to the new troll. Simon, how is it for you?

April 4, 2012 7:00 pm

I would take this field more seriously if before purporting to explain how the climate system behaved millions of years ago, they figured out why the planet warmed ‘rapidly’ as recently as 1910-1940.

Steve from Rockwood
April 4, 2012 7:13 pm

Well I guess the science of global warming is finally settled.

Jim Clarke
April 4, 2012 7:39 pm

Lets be real simple:
You can not melt a significant part of an ice cap without the atmosphere over that icecap warming at the same time.
You can not significantly warm an ocean without the atmosphere over that ocean warming at the same time.
It does not matter what their fussy proxies tell them. The warming had to come first to release the CO2. They admit that in their explanation and deny it in the headline and conclusion. This paper is a study in cognitive dissonance. The only way it could pass peer review is if the entire climate of the science is one of cognitive dissonance.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with climate sensitivity to CO2, which is the only real issue in the debate.
Sorry, Simon. This paper actually makes the skeptical argument stronger, first by showing that the warming came first. Second by showing the warmista’s have a serious problem with logic, when they directly contradict there own research in the conclusions of their papers, and the rest of their comrades think that it is great science!

Neil Jordan
April 4, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: cui bono says:
April 4, 2012 at 3:16 pm
“PS: Anyone notice Dr Shakun and Kari Norgaard are both at U of Oregon? Is there something in the water over there?”
Shakun and three other authors are at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Norgaard is at University of Oregon in Eugene, about an hour’s drive south of OSU. OSU focuses on hard sciences like engineering, agriculture, forestry, and oceanography. To further identify the schools, OSU is noted for its beaver mascot and UofO is noted for its duck mascot.
I would need to exhume my old oceanography texts to weigh in on any details on the paper. However, sea level rise needs to come into the picture. At time zero in the paper, sea level was about 100 meters lower than it is now. All that continental ice melted and caused a ~100 m rise in sea level over several thousand years. The rate of sea level rise combined with volume of the global ocean basin would provide an estimate of timing and rate of ice melting.
The water supplies? You would have to check with the respective city engineering departments. The Willamette River flows through both cities. Eugene is upstream.
Neil Jordan OSU ’68, ’70

keith
April 4, 2012 7:46 pm

My rule of thumb about these kinds of things is, no error bars … no science.
w.
That’s really funny. Its clear that only a cursory reading was made before this criticism was issued. Trying reading the whole article (including the supplementary) before preaching to the choir. Your rule of thumb is taken care of in the supplementary data.

Gail Combs
April 4, 2012 7:49 pm

kramer says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:36 am
The BBC article somebody linked to above says
““At the end of the last ice age, CO2 rose from about 180 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to about 260;”….
_______________________
That is the part I always laugh at.
1. Warmists insist that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere so the Ice Core data represents the world.
2. The give CO2 as 180 ppm during the ice age. Also since so much water is tied up in ice … the climate is drier.
If all that was true plants would die out because it was cold, dry and there was not enough CO2 to allow growth and seed production.

…According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).” http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

Validation from the people who know and depend on the truth – FARMERS
Hydroponic Shop

…Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or producehttp://www.thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

….With the advent of home greenhouses and indoor growing under artificial lights and the developments in hydroponics in recent years, the need for CO2 generation has drastically increased. Plants growing in a sealed greenhouse or indoor grow room will often deplete the available CO2 and stop growing. The following graph will show what depletion and enrichment does to plant growth:
GO TO SITE for CO2 vs Plant Growth GRAPH
Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing. Because 300 PPM is the atmospheric CO content, this amount is chosen as the 100% growth point. You can see from the chart that increased CO can double or more the growth rate on most normal plants. Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people….. http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

DirkH
April 4, 2012 7:49 pm

Simon says:
April 4, 2012 at 4:56 pm
“It’s only been known for over a hundred years, but read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
All there.”
Simon, do you also have a reliable source? wikipedia says of itself that it isn’t a reliable source.

keith
April 4, 2012 8:38 pm

Dirk H
Have you noticed those things called references (yes wikipedia has some in there also)? They are those pesky things supporters of AGW feel obligated to provide and but rarely seen in the diatribes of critics

GregK
April 4, 2012 8:53 pm

So how did plants get on during the Devonian when CO2 levels were for the most part above 2000ppm ?
see http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
Seems they did quite well and colonised the continents but got into strife at the end of the Devonian when CO2 levels plunged [ a bit of a glaciation]. Modern plants may have evolved to tolerate low CO2.
Interestingly, corals and other subaqueous limey critters didn’t do badly either. The carbonate fringing reefs of the Kimberley in Western Australia [equivalent to today’s Great Barrier Reef of Queensland] also formed in the Devonian. The critters seemed to tolerate an ocean in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times current levels [if proxies can be believed].

RockyRoad
April 4, 2012 9:13 pm

What–they got the ice cores upside down?
I thought they only did that with graphs.

Manfred
April 4, 2012 9:15 pm

Nature can be understood pretty well by its own editorials, like this:
“To make sure they are not, scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters. Anything strategic that can be done on that front would be useful, be it media training for scientists or building links with credible public-relations firms. In this light, there are lessons to be learned from the current spate of controversies.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html
Other defining characteristics of Nature are the disturbing Hockey Stick papers which are still in circulation and not retracted, and how they treated the groundbreaking discoveries of McIntyre.in the past.

RockyRoad
April 4, 2012 9:22 pm

I’m betting this “Simon” character is actually Connolley with a bogus email addy–he likes to reference Wikkipedia sources and makes terse comments just like William did. But then again, I’m just speculating.
And it isn’t worth my time to delve deeper. (We gotta have SOMEBODY that’s a contrarian to whom we can display our knowledge and resources, right?)

Doede Rensema
April 4, 2012 9:59 pm

So, if I understand correctly, they say what happened is:
Changes in the amount of sunlight melted the ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere WITHOUT raising the temperatures. The meltwater changed the ocean currents, which released CO2 and only did the temperatures begin to change …
Anybody see a problem here?

April 4, 2012 10:22 pm

Simon says:
This whole “CO2 lagged behind the warming” has been one of the foundations for believing there is nothing to worry about . This finding is a major blow to the wall that is the skeptic argument. This is not the removal of one or two bricks, but a major structural failure. In fact I can hear the falling of debris as I write.
======================
I thought that the standard alarmist position was that CO2 lag was not all that important. Now that a speculative paper attempts to “refutes” the claim, strangely it becomes “foundational.” If it was “foundational” to CAGW theory and you seem to be admitting as much, does that imply that up until now CAGW was a problematical proposition? Good to hear this paper has fixed that for you.

keith
April 4, 2012 10:29 pm

Wow the reverse logic is flowing tonight. Will: the CO2 lag was the last straw held by critics of AGW. They no longer have a factual basis to stand on

DirkH
April 4, 2012 10:55 pm

keith says:
April 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm
“Wow the reverse logic is flowing tonight. Will: the CO2 lag was the last straw held by critics of AGW. They no longer have a factual basis to stand on”
Makes me think of
“We have surrounded them in their tanks.”

pat
April 4, 2012 10:56 pm

good to see MSNBC looked for objections! anthony, u need to let Miguel know how to spell WUWT though:
4 April: MSNBC: Miguel Llano: Study aims to settle climate battle over temperatures, CO2
But a website critical of the science was quick to post comments by other skeptics.
“The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data,” Whatsupwiththat.com quoted Don Easterbrook, a geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University, as saying.
University of Oslo geologist Tom Segalstad was quoted as citing a 1992 study that questioned any data from ice cores…
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11021276-study-aims-to-settle-climate-battle-over-temperatures-co2

Steve (Paris)
April 4, 2012 11:09 pm

Another paper along the road to the Rio ‘global government’ fest. I wonder what else is in the pipeline?

April 4, 2012 11:18 pm

They are saying that Milankovitch raised the temperature, however minutely; that meltwater put a brake on the thermohaline circulation (pullease, let’s lose the antiquated concept of MOC); and that the deep oceans released the CO2.
It is a plausible hypothesis.
It has been clear since Shackleton in the 70’s that forams just luuv Milankovitch but other proxies and ice cores are not so enamored.
Milankovitch gives us three signals, 20, 40, and 100 thousand years in round numbers. Statistical significance has been found for 20 and 40k in glacial advances and other proxies, but the strongest and most stable 100kyr signal has no power in the Pleistocene.
Off the coast of New Jersey, temperature seems to have risen before CO2 in the PETM.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.450.1218S.

April 4, 2012 11:32 pm

Doug Proctor says: April 4, 2012 at 10:55 am
In many areas of science, what you see on the large scale, you see on the small scale, and vice-versa. It is a principle of geology and, I think, astrophysics, two ends of the spectrum. So if your long-term data shows a rise in temp before CO2, that is, the larger scale features of temp pre-date CO2 releases, then you will expect to see the same in the small scale. Which is what was first seen, the 800-year disconnect. “Adjusting” or “correcting” the data for the smaller time-frame to show the opposite is reasonable only if you also can do it for the larger time-frame.
The problem is this: how do you have small changes add up to become the bigger changes, if sums of each part are opposites? The small have to add up to the big.
__________
Doug you are correct. In the near term, CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months on a shorter temperature–CO2 time scale.
See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
Shakun et al is highly improbable.

April 4, 2012 11:35 pm

So many armchair experts and google galileos having a say here. Better get writing people, The journals will be keen to present your detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound debunking off this detailed, scientifically valid and statistically sound research. You should all probably go and do some university level science courses at least at undergraduate level first though.

Eugene WR Gallun
April 4, 2012 11:35 pm

agreeing with OH Dahlsyeen
Prehaps the wrong questions are being asked.
If CO2 has such a powerful greenhouse gas effect — why does the earth ever cool down? Once CO2 has been let loose in the atmosphere the earth should remain hot forever. There should be no ice ages. Even if the output of the sun were to decrease by 10% the CO2 greenhouse effect should keep the earth sweltering.
And I glean from what i read above that falling temperatures precede falling levels of CO2. That can only mean that some force controls the earth’s temperature and CO2 levels are of little importance. Certainly CO2 levels should drop before temperature levels drop if CO2 creates this overwhelming greenhouse gas effect. Yet high levels of CO2 can’t even maintain the earth temperature.
So if you reason from this direction and ask questions from this direction does it help to clarify the inanities of “global warming”? i mean, how could the earth ever cool down? How can they possibly explain the cooling? Boy, I cant wait to hear their answers.

April 4, 2012 11:46 pm

bmcburney says:
April 4, 2012 at 11:17 am
So the first step in the process is that the Milankovitch cycle melts the ice but the melting of the ice is not a response to any increase in warmth because the change in the Milankovitch cycle itself does not increase warmth or produce climate change directly.

So, the ice melts, but there’s no warming to cause the melt…
The climate only warms once CO2 is released from the deep ocean which happens after the ice melts but before the climate warms in response to the CO2.
…and CO2 spontaneously comes out of solution in response to the no-warming…
The key insight of this paper is that the change in the Milankovitch cycle is a “climate neutral” event which melts the glaciers through an undisclosed process having nothing to do with climate.
…thus, the paper proves the existence of — magic.
Interestingly enough, after I expanded the graph horizontally to decompress the timeline, I got a typical CO2-lags-temperature graph…

1 3 4 5 6 7 10