Why does our planet experience an ice age every 100,000 years?
Deep storage of carbon dioxide in the oceans may have triggered this unexplained phenomena, new research shows
This mysterious phenomena, dubbed the ‘100,000 year problem’, has been occurring for the past million years or so and leads to vast ice sheets covering North America, Europe and Asia. Up until now, scientists have been unable to explain why this happens.
Our planet’s ice ages used to occur at intervals of every 40,000 years, which made sense to scientists as the Earth’s seasons vary in a predictable way, with colder summers occurring at these intervals.
However there was a point, about a million years ago, called the ‘Mid-Pleistocene Transition’, in which the ice age intervals changed from every 40,000 years to every 100,000 years.
New research published today in the journal Geology has suggested the oceans may be responsible for this change, specifically in the way that they suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere.
By studying the chemical make-up of tiny fossils on the ocean floor, the team discovered that there was more CO2 stored in the deep ocean during the ice age periods at regular intervals every 100,000 years.
This suggests that extra carbon dioxide was being pulled from the atmosphere and into the oceans at this time, subsequently lowering the temperature on Earth and enabling vast ice sheets to engulf the Northern Hemisphere.
Lead author of the research Professor Carrie Lear, from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, said: “We can think of the oceans as inhaling and exhaling carbon dioxide, so when the ice sheets are larger, the oceans have inhaled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, making the planet colder. When the ice sheets are small, the oceans have exhaled carbon dioxide, so there is more in the atmosphere which makes the planet warmer.
“By looking at the fossils of tiny creatures on the ocean floor, we showed that when ice sheets were advancing and retreating every 100,000 years the oceans were inhaling more carbon dioxide in the cold periods, suggesting that there was less left in the atmosphere.”
Marine algae play a key role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere as it is an essential ingredient of photosynthesis.
CO2 is put back into the atmosphere when deep ocean water rises to the surface through a process called upwelling, but when a vast amount of sea ice is present this prevents the CO2 from being exhaled, which could make the ice sheets bigger and prolong the ice age.
“If we think of the oceans inhaling and exhaling carbon dioxide, the presence of vast amounts of ice is like a giant gobstopper. It’s like a lid on the surface of the ocean,” Prof Lear continued.
The Earth’s climate is currently in a warm spell between glacial periods. The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. Since then, temperatures and sea levels have risen, and ice caps have retreated back to the poles. In addition to these natural cycles, manmade carbon emissions are also having an effect by warming the climate.
###
Related, the 2014 AGU presentation suggests it’s thermohaline circulation changes:
It’s co2, the magic molecule ! What else can it be ? … this article isn’t even good science fiction. And somehow the co2 got released back into the atmosphere after 100,000 years ? Was it a tipping point for run a way greenhouse planet? Seriously, the more you think about this, the stupider C/AGW becomes.
Can anyone explain why the glaciation during the glacial periods is in the Northern Hemisphere? Do not the land masses in the Southern Hemisphere (South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand) become sufficiently cold also? If not, why not?
Geography is the short answer. Antarctica of course is permanently glaciated – assisted by its circular shape centred on the pole. But all the other land masses in the southern hemisphere are either too far north or too narrow and closely surrounded by ocean to support large thick permanent ice sheets. The large land masses in critical locations where they may or may not support ice sheets are all located in the north. Therefore only the northern hemisphere can tip us into ice age when ice starts to accumulate in these places from one season to the next.
Thanks.
Last time I checked, cold water could hold a lot more CO2.
Sounds like these researchers have once again reversed cause and effect.
Cold waters sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere, rather than oceans sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere making everything cold.
just a layman that drank soda in his youth but it seems to me that COLDER water or soda HOLDS IN co2 much better than when the soda warms???? rather than “sucking in” co2 i submit more likely the oceans are releasing LESS is how the buildup happens……..
Vukcevik (thank you!) put me on to Dr. Judith Curry’s nascent(?) theory of “Stadium-Wave” whereby there are numerous long-term natural cycles which might resonate & amplify and drive each other.
I’m thinking that, with the right conjunction of independent natural cycles, Earth is prone to such resonant amplifications (such as periodic Ice Ages?) (If I’ve got this wrong, I stand to be corrected, please)
The massive energy exchanges of such swings between ‘amplified rogue-waves’ surely vastly overwhelms the pathetic contributions of AGW.
Methinks we are chasing a chimera ….. we shd be looking to understand better the paleo-historic cycles, and not running around like headless chickens trying to blame a minor (in historical terms) up-tick in CO2 which — of itself — is well within paleo-historical limits and can easily be explained in the context of the Big Cycles.
When will this madness end, and money be diverted to USEFUL ends?
All I see here is bad pulp science fiction – ‘this leads to that, which leads then to thus’. It’s 100% idle chatter and 0% data, mechanism, or analysis. Post hoc rationalizations…
if they had a workable mechanism they should be able to demonstrate why the Mid-Pleistocene Transition occurred exactly when it did, and not sooner or later, and why it went from ca. 40Ky to ca. 100Ky.
More importantly, they should be able to account for the purely periodic changes without relying on non-periodic feedback mechanisms such as ‘CO2 inhalation and exhalation’.
Finally, there is absolutely no mention of the fundamental fact of chemistry that CO2 is far more soluble in cold water than in warm: http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png which would indicate that the temperature changes control the CO2 availability and not vice versa.
+ 1.. tad Chem.
These people have carbon on the brain. They are so invested in the CO2=evil concept of climate, they either can’t or won’t even consider there may be causes for climate change other than CO2, causes like solar output and activity, precession, orbital eccentricities, volcanic activity, etc, etc, etc.
Until they get their collective head out of the CO2 sand, they will be unable to see anything that resembles truth.
“We can think of the oceans as inhaling and exhaling carbon dioxide, so when the ice sheets are larger, the oceans have inhaled carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, making the planet colder. When the ice sheets are small, the oceans have exhaled carbon dioxide, so there is more in the atmosphere which makes the planet warmer.
So then why all this nonsense about burning fossil fuel which represents 400 parts per million. When the Ocean decides to inhale again atmospheric CO2 will dropped to 40 parts per million and we will all need to relocate to panama despite all the wind turbines and solar panels.
A little leery about the fixation on co2 as the god of climate change
It is quite likely that carbon dioxide had nothing whatsoever to do with glacial cycle length. It looks like they brought it in to justify more funds for the project. It so happens that the “Mid-Pleistocene Transition” coincides with the closing of the Panamanian Seaway. This blocked the west to east current that had existed across the Seaway and forced a reorganization of oceanic current systems of both Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Among other things, this established the ENSO oscillation in its present form. More than likely, the glacial cycle length is related to the reorganization of the oceanic current system when that seaway closed.
There are some significant objections to Milankovitch cycles as the cause of ice ages. If you dig into the history of how M-cycles became correlated with global temperature, it is fraught with assumptions, virtually no independent dating, and self-proving, squeezing and expanding of curves for deep sea cores and M-cycles until they match. The claim is then made that because orbital cycles match global temperature, the correlations must be correct! For example, take a look at how global temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years are dated–the fact is they aren’t. The temp data comes largely from delta 18O of shells in deep sea cores that can’t be dated accurately–most of the age determinations depend on sedimentation rates based on a few dates here and there. Then, assuming the sed rates never change, the thickness of sediment is used to calculate ages. (sed rates are notoriously suspect because any change throws age calculations off). So do these age determinations match orbital variations? Not really, because the next step is to squeeze and expand the two sets of curves until they match–ie. it’s self proving.
Synchronous glaciations in both hemisphere argue strongly against M-cycles but this is largely ignored. Many D/O abrupt climate reversals (the most prominent being the Younger Dryas) argue even more strongly that full-glacial climate changes take place much more rapidly than M-cycles can account for. The discovery of the abrupt YD climate change that went from full interglacial temps to full glacial temps in a few hundred years and stayed there for >1000 years before abruptly warming to full interglacial again in a few hundred years showed that glacial/interglacial temps could change far more abruptly than could be accounted for by M-cycles. This led many to conclude something other than M-cycles controls glacial/interglacial cycles. Various schemes attempted to ‘save’ the Milankovitch concept, i.e. deep ocean current changes, but these had to be discarded because we now have abundant 14C and 10Be dates that show temp changes in both hemispheres were very synchronous. Whatever causes glaciations and interglaciations does so for the entire planet synchronously.
So M-cycles don’t satisfactorily explain climate variations from glacials to interglacials. Bottom line is that we need a new hypothesis to explain climate changes–perhaps something like the Svensmark concept.
Exactly Don and I think we should look to the sun’s primary variability and the secondary climatic effects associated with that solar variability moderated by changes in the strength of the earth’s geo magnetic field.
These factors bringing the terrestrial items that influence the climate either toward a warmer mode or cooler mode, and if these terrestrial factors are pushed far enough in one direction or another climatic thresholds could be reached which result in a complete reorganization of the climate.
THE TERRESTRIAL ITEMES
changes in atmospheric circulation patterns
changes in oceanic current patterns
changes in frequency of major volcanic activity
changes in sea surface temperatures
changes in global cloud coverage
changes in global snow coverage
changes in global sea ice coverage
i suspect M-cycles, continental placement and solar variability are the three main drivers of ice ages.
For interglacials solar activity and M-cycles are the two main drivers, where solar activity is able to “offset the M-cycle”
then i didn’t take volcanic activity, cloud cover, ocean current changes into account, as i believe they to have a multi Kyr cyclic behaviour that is yet to be discovered, and the changes of the magnetic poles/earth’s magnetosphere,….
a simple example: a huge volcanic event under the WAIS that destroys it creating a meltwater pulse, triggering a glaciation…
in short: loads of variables that are able to add or substract to the M-cycle periodicity, but more, that are able to change climate on bigger scales then a M-cycle can do on it’s own.
however i do not discard the M-cycle completely. I rather see it as one part of the big whole
Don
So M-cycles don’t satisfactorily explain climate variations from glacials to interglacials. Bottom line is that we need a new hypothesis to explain climate changes–perhaps something like the Svensmark concept.
Or maybe just plain old chaos theory that everyone for some bizarre reason avoids like the plague.
Its a weakly periodically forced nonlinear oscillator.
Planet 9 – ??? GK
Don – completely agree. The key to this is to understand the amount of energy change required to end an ice age. And the shape of the graph – it is not curved to some new equilibrium, it is straight up 8 to 10 degrees. Over a very short period. Then drops away again to its natural equilibrium 8 degrees colder than today. What causes that energy injection ? The evidence points to episodic large scale mid ocean ridge magmatism.
“What causes that energy injection ?”
WR: Perhaps it is not an energy injection but it is a diminishing / stop of the Earth’ Water Cooling.
From the Deep Sea every year more than a million cubic kilometers (!) of cold water is welling up and has to be warmed. When that upwelling/downwelling process would be strongly diminished / stopped for a thousand years, this would add to the effects of the Milankovitch cycles.
When the surface layer of the oceans is not ‘refreshed’ regularly, warming of that relatively thin surface layer can be quick. The atmosphere will follow quickly in warming etc. etc.
The two processes, more insolation and a stop of the Water Cooling (Upwelling) could be the start of a lot of follow up processes.
So how much (ppm CO2) is their in say a gallon of cold water compared to a gallon of warm water say wth a temperature difference of 30c?.
That would depend on whether the water is at saturation or not. It is possible at a subsaturation concentration that the two could have exactly the same concentration of CO2. Example: two identical containers of water one at 10C the other at 40C in a room of 400ppm CO2 at equilibrium will both have 400ppm.
If you graph the concentration vs time as you bubble CO2 through the two containers, the colder will rise to a much higher concentration. Example: our two water containers from the first example. The 10C container will quickly approach 2500ppm while the 40C container will only approach 1000ppm.
I can’t find the data for subsaturation outgassing, but as it follows a log pattern I suspect the farther you are from the saturation point, the slower the change will be.
I really need to actually do this experiment again, the one problem I see is in the apparatus to maintain the temperature in the two containers, In Chem 1 lab back in 1981 we assumed the temperature didn’t change significantly in the process but we didn’t measure it. We weren’t too concerned with the numbers as it was more of a qualitative concept lab rather than a quantitative one. It seems like it should be an easily done undergrad lab though.
At 400ppm CO2, the oceans from -1C to 30C should be able to hold 400ppm CO2 and there should not be any ocean reinforcement of CO2 concentrations due to outgas or absorption of CO2 due to temperature – water at 30C doesn’t saturate until 1250 ppm. At -1C the oceans can take about 3300ppm CO2 concentrations.
Of course the data above is for fresh water. The chemical processes in the ocean buffering solution and any biological processes completely throw the numbers off.
This does not make sense. There was an ice age 30,0000 years ago and 70,000 years ago. We went from 100 to 40 NOT 40 to 100,000 years.
There were Pleistocene glaciations ~130,000 yrs BP, 70-90 yrs BP, 30-40,000 yrs BP, 21-24,000 yrs BP, and 17-19,000 yrs BP. Plus the Younger Dryas for about 1000 yrs. These do not fit the M-cycles.
After all that inhaling the PH must have around 5/6. Did any of the coral die???
Well, it doesn’t. The 100 kyr cycle doesn’t exist. It is an artifact. The interval between glacials and interglacials is determined by obliquity, and thus follows a multiple of 41 kyr. Milankovitch Theory is incorrect.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/
As you can see there are 11 interglacials in a period of 800,000 years. How can anybody defend a 100 kyr cycle with so many interglacials and none of them coming 100 kyr after the previous?
Counting terminations by MIS numbers, it changes.
plazaeme,
Of course it changes if you follow a different criterion, However you are deceiving yourself by changing the rules at mid-game. You are counting as single interglacial what 1 M years ago you would consider two that are separated by 41 kyr.
It is as simple as contrasting the eccentricity (100 kyr cycle) with the obliquity (multiples of 41 kyr cycle):
The black curve is EPICA temperature, the blue curve is obliquity, and the red curve is eccentricity normalized. I hope you see the problem. Out of 9 peaks eccentricity runs into very serious problems in 4. Three interglacials fall outside the peak (red stars), and two interglacials fall inside one peak (red dots). And even when the interglacials MIS 17 and 19 fall inside a peak, they are showing an obliquity distance (blue bar). So that leaves you only with the distance between MIS 13 and 11 to support your case. And both can hardly be described as typical interglacials.
Obliquity offers a much better match to empirical evidence. There are no doubt some irregularities, but the norm is that when temperatures rise, they almost always follow the obliquity curve with a slight lag of 5-10,000 years.
Javier, I am not deceiving anyone, not even myself. I had the curiosity to see “what if” we use MIS terminations and Lisiecki and Raymo. I’m not considering it “the truth”, nor something special. Don’t get excited.
I don’t get excited plazaeme,
It is clear that there is a 100 kyr periodicity in the data because it has been recognized repeatedly for the past 45 years by many authors. So it is not surprising that you also find it. I do too. The question is never finding a periodicity in a frequency analysis, but demonstrating that the periodicity found corresponds to a real physical phenomenon. As my graph shows, the eccentricity periodicity does not fit temperatures, so if you find a 100 kyr period that is not the eccentricity, what do you make out of it? It is likely not to be a real cycle.
And then there is the problem of the dating of Lisiecki and Raimo LR04 benthic stack. They use an age model that has a significant deviation from astronomical data. Plotting obliquity for the entire stack gives a quite bad fit. The dates from EPICA appear to be a lot more precise.
actually it’s something i also noticed: glaciation and interstadials do follow a 41kyr “harmonic”.
To me it’s obvious: since the closure of the Panama Isthmus the smaller amplitude 41 kyr cycles took place for harmonic variants of the 41kyr cycle with a bigger amplitude. Only 2 of them do have an unexplainable “offset” (in the graph MIS 11 and MIS 7e) and that’s where i find it a pity that curry didn’t made a full harmonic scale graph. which would place MIS 9 and MIS 7c without the offset.
in that full harmonic graph you would notice that:
-MIS 9 would be following MIS 13 by 160000 years which is roughly 4 41Kyr cycles
-MIS 7c would be following MIS 9 by 120000 years or roughly 3 41kyear events.
-only MIS 11 and 7e are in offset, MIS 11 due to it’s unusual length and MIS 7e due to it’s unusual short period. However MIS 11 and 7e do follow an individual harmonic of the 41kyear cycle: roughly 160000 years or 4 41kyr cycles.
that’s something i noticed from Curry’s graph.
My graph, actually. I think that can be seen very well in any temperature graph that includes obliquity.
My comment may be less than informed having only read summaries of the article such as…
http://3tags.org/article/why-does-our-planet-experience-an-ice-age-every-100-000-years
However it seems that Prof Carrie Lear and friends have explained nothing.
They make the observation …
‘By looking at the fossils of tiny creatures [ foraminifera] on the ocean floor, we showed that when ice sheets were advancing and retreating every 100,000 years the oceans were inhaling more carbon dioxide in the cold periods, suggesting that there was less left in the atmosphere.”
Prof Lear is a long time carbonista http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Has_The_Mystery_Of_The_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet_Been_Solved_999.html
So it’s all the fault of CO2.
But even for fully fledged carbonistas there is the problem of why CO2 varied before the appearance of nasty fire – using homo erectus and descendants.
However there are others who think that it’s not all the fault of CO2 [and even got published in Nature].
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/abs/nature12374.html
Prof Carrie Lear and friends explain nothing.
They claim to have found an approximately 100,000 year cycle in the deposition of forams.
If there is an approximately 100,000 year cycle in glaciation/water temperature that’s what you might expect and that’s what you might try and find [if that’s what you’ve postulated and received research funds for].
Doesn’t explain the cycle’s existence, if it exists
Sigh, when is the science community ever going to get its act together………..? The Quaternary, and Pleistocene began roughly 2.5 million years, as the result of the Isthmus of Panama coming together and joining into one land mass. Before that time, warmer waters of the Pacific Ocean were able to transition directly into the Atlantic, without having to take the long road around through the Indian Ocean. With more warm waters moving over to the Atlantic, more heat was able to be deposited in the Arctic regions. As the Isthmus slowly linked the two Americas together, this loss of warm water was just enough to cause the periodic glaciations, caused by the Milankovitch Cycles, due to varying orbital cycles of the earth around the sun. Common Sense 101
See the problems with M-cycles above.
Their theory assumes that CO2 affects climate but there is no real evidence that such is the case. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to warming. In terms of greenhouse gas theory, the primary greenhouse gas is really H2O yet that fact is ignored.
If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a detectable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces heat loss by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. There is no radiative greenhouse effect associated with a real greenhouse. So to on Earth. The Earth’s atmosphere keeps the surface 33 degrees C warmer then it would be without an atmosphere because of gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. It is a convective greenhouse effect. As derived from first principals, the convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. There is no radiative greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system, not even on Venus. The radiative greenhouse effect is science fiction as are all conjectures that depend upon it including the AGW conjecture.
The reason CO2 does not affect climate is that it does not ‘store’ heat. It is actually the inert gases that store heat. So, the sign is wrong, and all the assumptions about CO2 ‘trapping’ heat are also false. Why? The gas laws state clearly that the composition of any gas mixture is independent of what gases make up the mixture. So, temperature, volume and pressure are all independent of the types of gases involved. That is the first point: CO2 alone cannot violate these laws. There is no gas law for CO2 by itself.
The thermal laws state that everything above absolute zero (0 K) radiates. The warmer it is, the more it radiates (a simplification, but in essence correct.) There are two types of gases – inert and radiative. So called greenhouse gases RADIATE constantly – not just when they absorb a photon. They can absorb photons, and they can absorb energy from inert gases during collisions – but they constantly radiate, which is a COOLING effect. Yes, CO2 is not a warming influence, but a cooling one, as are all the other greenhouse gases.
Some scientists are not well schooled in multiple disciplines and thus often make assertions using the ones they understand, and leave out other important points. You must understand both gas laws and thermal laws to make sense of how it all works.
CO2 cannot ‘trap’ heat. Inert gases ‘trap’ heat, as they can only give heat up (or gain energy) through collisions, either with each other, the surface of the earth, or in collisions with radiative molecules. With no radiative gases in our atmosphere, the only avenue for energy loss in our atmosphere would be through collisions with the earth’s surface and each other. Thus, the atmosphere would be warmer (no radiation out of the atmosphere), more energy would impinge on earth’s surface, and it would both warm AND radiate more.
Oh, and one more thing – CO2 is not ‘well-mixed’ in the atmosphere, as is always stated. How could it be? It is virtually ALL released at the earth’s surface, in a never-ending release. It HAS to be more dense at the surface than in the higher reaches of the atmosphere. We have decades of measurements to prove that is true, but the claim is still made that it is ‘well-mixed’. We know about ‘CO2 domes’ around some cities, yet it is well mixed? This is what happens when you focus too narrowly on general assumptions.
The point of all this is to point out that the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ are not responsible for heating the earth, at all. If anything, they have a miniscule role in cooling it.
@shotsky
good comment
I agree with most\
however
” and one more thing – CO2 is not ‘well-mixed’ in the atmosphere, as is always stated. How could it be? It is virtually ALL released at the earth’s surface, in a never-ending release./’
seems incorrect.
put a number of amounts of gases in a bottle, shake it, and what do you get?
there is diffusion making every point in that bottle reflecting the composition of what you originally put in. It is the Law.
earth is like that bottle. there maybe points where CO2 is more or less – indeed people may have died of asphyxiation [not CO2 poisoning] in areas where large amounts of CO2 were released in a short period of time, much more than the average, but shake the bottle enough [weather and wind] and all gases will diffuse to show you that the average is about 400 ppm, as reported by a number of stations.
The only thing wrong about this theory is that cold oceans absorb more Co2, and colder oceans release more Co2 — the exact opposite of what these researchers claim is true.
Correction: The only thing wrong about this theory is that cold oceans absorb more Co2, and warmer oceans release more Co2 — the exact opposite of what these researchers claim is true.
true
see my correction
“The last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago. Since then, temperatures and sea levels have risen, and ice caps have retreated back to the poles.”
NO. The first 3/4 of the current interglacial were WARMER than now.
Temperatures have FALLEN since then.
Also there is plenty of evidence that during the first 3/4 of the Holocene, the Arctic was summer sea ice free quite regularly. The current level of Arctic sea ice is much HIGHER than the earlier Holocene average.
These guys obviously have studied AGW scam rather than reality.
The authors of that paper should have looked at this paper:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/28/new-paper-modulation-of-ice-ages-via-precession-and-dust-albedo-feedbacks/
The ice ages are triggered by earth orbital cycle. However the albedo of the ice prevents the earth from warming causing the ice ages to last through several orbital cycles. However as the earth cools CO2 drops to a point where plants have a hard time growing. This leads to dust storms and that darkens the ice eventually leading to the ice melting. As the dirty ice melts the earth and oceans warm. CO2 moves from the ocean to the air causing CO2 levels in air to increase.
Even if you accept the IPCC’s take on CO2 and climate, you can’t get more than a very small fraction of the 100,000yr temperature cycle being caused by CO2.
CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured time scales, both during warming and cooling periods AND in the short and long term. The ice core record is well-established. The short-term record is also clear – see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-2199617
[excerpt]
To my knowledge, I initiated in early January 2008 the still-heretical notion that dCO2/dt changed ~contemporaneously with temperature and therefore atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged atmospheric temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
or:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
Others including Salby and Humlum et al have since published similar findings.
There are several observations about this striking dCO2/dt vs. temperature relationship:
1. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is remarkably strong for a natural global phenomenon.
2. The integral (of dCO2/dt) is atmospheric CO2, and it LAGS temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record. CO2 also LAGS temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record. Thus CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales. Thus the global warming hypothesis assumes that the future is causing the past. Thus the CAGW hypothesis fails.
3. This close dCO2/dt vs temperature relationship indicates that temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
4. The dCO2/dt vs. temperature correlation is the only detailed signal I have found in the data – there is NO evidence that CO2 LEADS temperature or that increasing atmospheric CO2 significantly increases global temperature.
5. Furthermore, global temperature declined from ~1940-1975, increased from ~1975-2000, and has stayed flat (or cooled slightly) since ~2000, all while atmospheric CO2 increased; so the correlation of temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2 has been NEGATIVE, Positive, and Near-Zero. I suggest Near-Zero is the correct estimate of the sensitivity (ECS) of global temperature to increasing atmospheric CO2. There is and never had been a manmade global warming crisis – there is no credible evidence to support this failed hypothesis.
6. With few exceptions including some on this website, nobody (especially the global warming alarmists) wants to acknowledge the LAG of CO2 after temperature – apparently this LAG of CO2 after temperature contradicts deeply-held religious beliefs about global warming.
7. While basic physics may suggest that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the overwhelming observational evidence indicates that the impact of increasing CO2 on global temperature is so small as to be insignificant.
8. In summary, observational evidence strongly indicates that the manmade global warming crisis does not exist.
9. Finally, atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Plants evolved with about 2000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 5 times current CO2 concentrations.
10. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.
11. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
12. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against other life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂
Regards, Allan
i certainly agree AllAn, just one sidenote: Maybe there is an anthropogenic signal in the current surface warming and why it diverges with the satellite warming: Land use changes.
a fact: decidous forests are generally cooler then agricultural land. How much of these forests have been replaced by warmer agricultural land? How does that correlate to temperature? (just like UHI effects)
For the rest i also am sure that the CO2 we add is the only “good” thing we are doing for nature… it’s basicly harmless
also agree with Allan
bearing in mind that there are giga tons of carbonates dissolved in the ocean water
it follows that
CO2g + H2Ol(l) +cold => CO3 (-2) + 2H (+1)
[when it is cold the CO2 dissolves into the oceans]
H2O + CO3(-2) + heat => CO2 (g) + 2OH (-1)
[everyone knows that the warming of water leads to the escape of CO2?]
so, [CO2] follows warming and cooling, it does not cause any warming or cooling
[as also proven by me with a number of experiments]
Maybe the point is because dust storms arise from previously arable land, then the area of UHI also affects the length of icing. Would that even be measurable?
I also agree with Allen. I’ve looked at the record from 1960 till present, it’s the same, co2 follows temperature each and every year. It’s not a random variation or occasionally, each and every year.
How do these get published? Great, thanks for highlighting that when the earth is cooler, the oceans retain more Co2. When it is warmer, it release it. BECAUSE THAT WASN’T ALREADY KNOWN. They make it sound like the oceans are some living entity and everyone 100k years they just soak in lots of Co2 and put us in an ice age.
Yes, our planet is alive and oceans are the lungs. Algae, however, do not like to very cold oceans.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular