The question of “which comes first, the temperature or the CO2 rise?” has been much like the proverbial “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. This seems to settle it – temperature came first, followed by an increase in CO2 outgassing from the ocean surrounding Antarctica.
“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” – Sune Olander Rasmussen
From the University of Copenhagen – Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change
The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.
In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2 is naturally higher. The gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2 helps to intensify the natural climate variations.
It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years.
“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.
Law Dome in Antarctica.
Deep-sea’s important role
The research, which was carried out in collaboration with researchers from the University of Tasmania in Australia, is based on measurements of ice cores from five boreholes through the ice sheet in Antarctica. The ice sheet is formed by snow that doesn’t melt, but remains year after year and is gradually compressed into kilometers thick ice. During the compression, air is trapped between the snowflakes and as a result the ice contains tiny samples of ancient atmospheres. The composition of the ice also shows what the temperature was when the snow fell, so the ice is an archive of past climate and atmospheric composition.
“The ice cores show a nearly synchronous relationship between the temperature in Antarctica and the atmospheric content of CO2, and this suggests that it is the processes in the deep-sea around Antarctica that play an important role in the CO2 increase,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen.
He explains that one of the theories is that when Antarctica warms up, there will be stronger winds over the Southern Ocean and the winds pump more water up from the deep bottom layers in the ocean where there is a high content of CO2 from all of the small organisms that die and fall down to the sea floor and rot. When strong winds blow over the Southern Ocean, the ocean circulation brings more of the CO2-rich bottom water up to the surface and a portion of this CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This process links temperature and CO2 together and the new results suggest that the linking is closer and happens faster than previously believed.
Climatic impact
The global temperature changed naturally because of the changing solar radiation caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the Earth’s tilt and the orientation of the Earth’s axis. These are called the Milankowitch cycles and occur in periods of approximately 100,000, 42,000, and 22,000 years. These are the cycles that cause the Earth’s climate to shift between long ice ages of approximately 100,000 years and warm interglacial periods, typically 10,000 – 15,000 years. The natural warming of the climate was intensified by the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen adding “That is why it is even more important that we have a good grip on which processes caused the climate of the past to change, because the same processes may operate in addition to the anthropogenic changes we see today. In this way the climate of the past helps us to understand how the various parts of the climate systems interact and what we can expect in the future.”
Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation
J. B. Pedro1,2, S. O. Rasmussen3, and T. D. van Ommen2,4
1Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
2Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
3Centre for Ice and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
4Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
Abstract. Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations in Antarctic temperature and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the glacial/interglacial cycles of at least the past 800-thousand years. Precise information on the relative timing of the temperature and CO2 changes can assist in refining our understanding of the physical processes involved in this coupling. Here, we focus on the last deglaciation, 19 000 to 11 000 yr before present, during which CO2 concentrations increased by ~80 parts per million by volume and Antarctic temperature increased by ~10 °C. Utilising a recently developed proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded. This result, consistent for both CO2 records, implies a faster coupling between temperature and CO2 than previous estimates, which had permitted up to millennial-scale lags.
Final Revised Paper (PDF, 463 KB) Discussion Paper (CPD)
Citation: Pedro, J. B., Rasmussen, S. O., and van Ommen, T. D.: Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation, Clim. Past, 8, 1213-1221, doi:10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012, 2012.
This is probably good research, but once again the authors feel compelled to state their touching belief in the AGW orthodoxy. In fact their research, and other research that demonstrates CO2 lagging after temperatures, is a huge blow against AGW.
.
The believers’ response is this: yes, the CO2 follows the temperature. But we’re still doomed because this means that CO2 warming will cause a positive feedback.
They seem to miss an important point: if CO2 does cause warming then it should show clearly in these records. But it doesn’t. There are actually many occasions when CO2 is rising as temperature falls, and vice versa.
.
As far as I can tell, in all records that show both temperature and CO2 going up and down, there is no evidence whatsoever for the claimed positive feedback due to the warming effect of CO2.
As Richard Lindzen showed in his paper a couple of years ago, it’s almost as if the greenhouse effect simply isn’t working in the climate system. I assume it can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but it appears to be impossible to demonstrate in the real world. Having said that, I do recall that Gore appeared to resort to trickery in his ‘demonstration’ of the greenhouse effect.
.
This demonstrable lag between temperature and CO2 is one reason why I’m extremely sceptical of AGW, let alone CAGW.
Chris
I’m a little surprised to see names “Law Dome” and “Eric Steig” in mainstream media after reading so much about them at ClimateAudit.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/aussie-antarctic-scientist-in-climate-studies-breakthrough/story-fn5fsgyc-1226434145677
@Eli Rabett, July 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm
You seem to be in dire need of one of these:
but only slightly …
probably as a result of …
As a result a small portion of …
although mostly not to great depths …
The result was that …
This meant that …
but may …
As a result …
Only then did …
So somehow …
suggests that …
This is interpreted as …
Apparently …
… you’d be better off starting out with one of these.
They need to add Mann to their team. He’d just use the cores upside-down, and PRESTO!, CO2 would lead warming.
Chris Wright says:
July 24, 2012 at 4:05 am
” it’s almost as if the greenhouse effect simply isn’t working in the climate system. I assume it can be demonstrated in a laboratory, but it appears to be impossible to demonstrate in the real world.”
Try this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/
Are you trying to confuse people Anthony? The denizens here aren’t sure what to make of this paper, although there is the high level of distrust we’ve come to expect.
Steve O says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm
“If you believe in multiplicative forcings, it seems possible that it wouldn’t matter which came first, the warming or the CO2. Either one could lead to much more of both.”
This is one of the things people argue about here
. At the start of our interstadial,20,000 years ago the orbital changes began a temperature rise which then led to an increase in CO2 from 200ppm. The increased CO2 increased the temperature more, leading to a positive feedback cycle which increased both until the system reached a new equilibrium some 5C warmer and with about 280ppm of CO2 after 10,000years. You can see that in graph A above. Smaller effects have bobbed the temperatures up and down a bit around these values for the last 10,000 years.
The concern now is that we have increased the amount of CO2 by at least as much again in the last century, from 280ppm to 390ppm.
If the physics of the greenhouse effect is correct, this is likely to reset the equilibrium temperature higher, though how much higher is under discussion by IPCC, posters here and a lot of others.
Allan MacRae says: July 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“We know there is a ~9 month lag of atmospheric CO2 concentration after temperature on a ~~4 year cycle of natural global temperature variation.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
We also know that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years on a much longer time cycle (ice core data).
… there is probably at least one intermediate lag, and quite possibly several, between these two – perhaps associated with the Wolf-Gleissberg Cycle, Hale Polarity Cycle, etc., AND-OR with the PDO, etc. “
______________________________________________
Is it possible that there is another intermediate cycle with a lag time of ~~200 years, IN ADDITION to the one observed at ~~800 years. Do these two cycles need to be mutually exclusive?
We have observed several temperature-lagged-by-CO2 cycles, with lags of ~800 years, 9 months and a few months (the annual seasonal cycle) – it seems entirely possible that there are more such cycles with lags somewhere between ~800 years and 9 months.
I have previously speculated that there is another cycle at a shorter time scale of ~~60 to 90 years, with a lag time of perhaps ~8 to 10 years.
If temperatures cool in the next few years as we’ve predicted, perhaps we’ll see.
It looks to me like this paper is intended to help the argument that the eventual rise in CO2 leads to even more temperature increases than would occur otherwise. With the 800 year lag that is more difficult. With 200 years it is now easier to claim. Of course, we can see seasonal responses of CO2 which makes one wonder how any 200-800 year lags make any sense at all.
I get a good chuckle out of Mosher once again asserting that increased CO2 leads to increases in temperature despite all the correlation problems in the temperature record. Sorry, but that is not a fact. We know the GHE exists, however, this only affects radiation from the surface. What about the energy in the atmosphere? What is the effect of increased CO2 on that energy? Mosher conveniently ignores that question as do all the other folks supporting the warming meme.
My own opinion is that increased CO2 leads to increased radiation of that energy to space which is a negative feedback to the GHE. I also believe the two effects are not equal across all concentrations of CO2. The fact that the measured outgoing TOA radiation does not match the models is evidence that something is happening and I believe this cooling effect is likely part of the cause.
Isn’t a few hundred years “at most” essential confirmation after further study of the previous “as much as 600 or 800 years?” To a CAGW promoter, this is a pig so they dressed it up with the lipstick of diminshing language and a few assertions having nothing to do with the study (e.g., more increase in CO2 in 150 years than …) The study is also raising the notion that any small change attributable to man would be bad and the spectre of ever increasing CO2 concentrations when even that seems unlikely. Then, in the end, the science part of the study postulates that milankovitch cycles are primary drivers and that CO2 is not while trying to draw attention to CO2 as much as possible with maybes and could-bes.
Is the worst case scenario that the climate will be unable to absorb the effects of a 3.5% fluctuation (the man-made part) in one of the trace gases that always flucuates by – well, quite a lot – which might and might not lead to a temporarily and theoretically slightly warmer world than it might have been (but not warmer than it often has been) and a greener place before becoming deadly cold again? And the climate – and sea levels – will still change on and on and on? Bottom line from the study and its contribution to the body of knowledge: CAGW continues to be a lot of fuss over a benign worst case scenario of a pig with lipstick actually taking flight.
Richard M says: July 24, 2012 at 6:31 am
“It looks to me like this paper is intended to help the argument that the eventual rise in CO2 leads to even more temperature increases than would occur otherwise. With the 800 year lag that is more difficult. With 200 years it is now easier to claim. Of course, we can see seasonal responses of CO2 which makes one wonder how any 200-800 year lags make any sense at all.
I get a good chuckle out of Mosher once again asserting that increased CO2 leads to increases in temperature despite all the correlation problems in the temperature record. Sorry, but that is not a fact. “ …
_______________
Let’s have some sympathy for the authors of this paper and also for Steve.
They both feel obliged to kneel before the CAGW icon and render obeisance to it.
And why not? Failure to do so is the ultimate mortal sin in the Church of Global warming, and punishment is swift and severe:
No more “pal-review” of your papers, no more research grants, even loss of your hard-earned university post – the academic equivalent of excommunication.
It is not surprising that ~only older tenured and/or retired professors have the courage to speak out against global warming mania.
It is not surprising that so many educated commentators here feel the need to comment here under aliases.
This is what we have become. Our universities have become closed-minded and repressive “group-think tanks”. Open disagreement with an obviously false and probably fraudulent “CAGW religion” is punished with shunning, loss of funding, and even banishment.
This disgraceful situation is the result of lack of intellectual competence, but also lack of courage – we have allowed ourselves to be bullied by scoundrels and imbeciles.
A trillion dollars of scarce global resources has been squandered on this nonsense.
It is past-time for a change – it is time to make this right.
Help!
I wish I could get a logical answer to questions I have asked before with no result. I am a very interested lay person who reads widely and can see when things defy common sense and logic.
As natural emissions of CO2 vary greatly either seasonally (Autunmn in the Northern Hemisphere) or randomly (volcano & vents) and this ‘extra’ CO2 does not end up joining the residual CO2 8 miles up or so (if it did there would hugely more there) why would our paltry emissions defy gravity and do that?
I understand and fully believe that the temperature has been taken in the CO2 area regularly since the early 50s and sporadically before that.and all this shows that the temp. has not changed at all there which would indicate that GHW does not occur there – except for a tiny amount that has always been there. Clearly CO2 does not absorb all wavelenghts of IR as thie higher energy IR direct from the sun are invisible to it. So just what does it absorb? In other words, if a scientist was using Spectral Analysis to decide what elements or molecules were present, how would CO2 be recognized?
It seems:
‘Extra’ CO2 does not add to residual CO2 – unless that CO2 comes from us and
Rises in CO2 follow rises in air temperature – unless the CO2 rises are attributed to us.
Please, no verbal pats on the head – I am in my 60s and have been interested since childhood and have found that when things defy common sense or are illogical they are usually untrue. Also the mob at the centre of CAGW have frequently lied and are still doing so. When I am lied to I find it almost impossible to believe anything they say unless it is accompanied by proof that makes logical sense..
Genuine answers welcomed
[snip . . content free posts aren’t helpful in adding to what we know . . perhaps you could repost your insights in a less opaque way . . thanks . . kbmod]
Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 6:28 am
“At the start of our interstadial,20,000 years ago the orbital changes began a temperature rise which then led to an increase in CO2 from 200ppm. The increased CO2 increased the temperature more, leading to a positive feedback cycle which increased both until the system reached a new equilibrium some 5C warmer and with about 280ppm of CO2 after 10,000years. You can see that in graph A above. Smaller effects have bobbed the temperatures up and down a bit around these values for the last 10,000 years.
The concern now is that we have increased the amount of CO2 by at least as much again in the last century, from 280ppm to 390ppm.”
How much of the 5 C temperature gain is directly attributable to the 80 ppm increase in CO2 and how much is directly to orbital changes?
Since we are not to 400 ppm yet, CO2 can only account for 1.2 C of any temperature change since the bottom of 200 ppm. We’ve gone up over 5 which includes any gain from CO2 and feed backs. So we are safe.
Oh ya the “Smaller effects..” that you mention that have “bobbed temperatures up and down” how do you know we are not a “Small effect” now causing a little bit of bobbing up with no assist from CO2?
@Mosher,
But then why doesn’t it cause more warming in the records? I guess the question to ask is, at what rate does the temperature rise before CO2 starts to follow, and at what rate does temperature change after CO2 is increasing as it outgasses from water?
“””””…..Eli Rabett says:
July 23, 2012 at 9:02 pm
What a nice confirmation of Shakun, et al
Shakun et al. find that at the end of the last ice age temperature increased immediately in the Arctic but only slightly, probably as a result of increased radiation during the northern hemisphere summer. As a result a small portion of the Arctic ice melted. The melt water had a lower salt concentration and thus was less dense than the surface water and sank although mostly not to great depths. …..”””””
Well Shakun must have had his/er brains shaken as a child; The melt water was less dense so it sank. Well I learn something new every day.
>>
Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 5:57 am
Try this link
<<
I not only tried that link, but I was involved in the conversation. Besides being called a “kook,” I was told that integration calculus was beyond my skill set (or words to that effect).
Jim
Why does it have to be either/or? I thought all climate scientists accepted that rising temps will cause some increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and that rising CO2 levels will cause some rising temps. I know the specifics as to the amount of influence one has on the other, and the speed with which it acts, are still being debated, but hasn’t the basic fact that rising CO2 levels cause warming, and that warming causes rising CO2 levels, been settled?
Peridot says:
July 24, 2012 at 8:07 am
Help!
I wish I could get a logical answer to questions…
____________________________________________
Perhaps these graphs will help.
Sun’s radiation: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
The sun vs the Earths radiation. I like this graph because it shows how sharp and high the incoming solar energy is vs how low and flat and spread out the outgoing radiation is: http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.html
This is the chart I think you are looking for. :http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/atmospheric_transmission.png?w=640
Note that O3 (ozone), H2O (water) and CO2 all absorb at the higher wave lengths and therefore absorb incoming solar energy.
CO2 spectra: http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
H2O spectra: http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
This is a listing of class, (visible, Ultraviolet …) for Frequency, Wavelength and Energy that can help sort out some of the ‘hidden’ parts of global warming vs ‘It’s the Sun’ note how little actual energy is in the infrared wavelengths compared to visible and higher. These wavelengths that vary the most in the solar spectra and are absorbed by the ocean. NASA link TSI does not tell the whole story but it is the only thing warmists talk about.
Also of interest:
The solar radiation absorbed by the oceans: http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Vukcevic’s graph of total solar Insolation (TSI) and the earths magnetic field (South Pole): http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
Old NOAA chart of changes in the sun’s energy: http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/ThesunNOAA.jpg
Abstract on changes in the sun’s energy: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
TSI monitoring results: http://acrim.com/
A good general paper: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070611/20070611_04.pdf
Sounds as if they are trying to find a smaller and smaller lag and eventually get to the point where they will ‘find’ that the CO2 preceded the temps.
mkelly says:
July 24, 2012 at 9:50 am
Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 6:28 am
“How much of the 5 C temperature gain is directly attributable to the 80 ppm increase in CO2 and how much is directly to orbital changes?
Since we are not to 400 ppm yet, CO2 can only account for 1.2 C of any temperature change since the bottom of 200 ppm. We’ve gone up over 5 which includes any gain from CO2 and feed backs. So we are safe.”
One slight misconception there. Over the first 10,000 years since our interglacial started to warm the temperature rose by 5C and the CO2 rose by 80ppm from 200 to 280ppm, this was then more or more or less constant up until 1880. The two rose more or less together, which is why one of the debating points here is “cause and effect”
In the last 100 years CO2 has risen again, by 110ppm from 280ppm to 390ppm. The last time CO2 changed this much it accompanied a 5C temperature rise. What evidence do you have to reassure me that another 5C rise is not going to happen?
Jim Masterson says:
July 24, 2012 at 11:17 am
>>
Entropic man says:
July 24, 2012 at 5:57 am
Try this link
<<
I not only tried that link, but I was involved in the conversation. Besides being called a “kook,” I was told that integration calculus was beyond my skill set (or words to that effect).
Jim
Sorry about that. The link was to another post on this website. Perhaps you should refer your complaint to the webmaster.
CO2 follows temperature, bandwagon follows CO2, money follows bandwagon, power follows money. Too simple?
Entropic says:
“In the last 100 years CO2 has risen again, by 110ppm from 280ppm to 390ppm. The last time CO2 changed this much it accompanied a 5C temperature rise.”
Did you read the article? Or even the headline? Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. And most of the effect of CO2 has already occurred, as you can see here.
Explain why temperature is no longer rising along with CO2. Seems to be a disconnect in the CO2=AGW conjecture, no?
There will be a Nobel Prize for the first climate scientist to prove that an effect can precede its cause! In fact the idea of backward causation has been discussed by philosophers.
Backward Causation
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/