Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I got to thinking about the ice cores. It’s pretty amazing to realize that the air trapped in the tiny bubbles in the ice is the very air that was trapped there way back when the ice formed. And that air can be hundreds of thousands of years old. Not only that, but we can analyze the trapped air to see the changes in CO2 over time.
How accurate are the results? Well, different ice cores drilled and analyzed by different groups of scientists give very similar results. Here are some recent ice core CO2 measurements, along with the Mauna Loa measurements in orange.

Figure 1. CO2 measurements from a variety of ice cores, along with Mauna Loa measurements in orange.
As you can see, there’s very good agreement between all of the various ice cores, ice core analysis groups, and ice core CO2 measurement methods. And the ice core measurements agree with the Mauna Loa CO2 observations quite well.
Another thing that can be calculated from the isotopes in the air trapped in the ice-core bubbles are the temperatures back in the day. The Vostok ice core data, one of the longest datasets, recorded four glaciated intervals and five “interglacials” including our current interglacial, the Holocene.

Figure 2. Vostok global temperature reconstruction, along with modern (1850-2022) HadCRUT temperature measurements.
Now, there are several very interesting things about this graphic. First, people keep saying that a slight global warming is an “existential crisis”. But in both of the previous interglacials, temperatures were up to 2°C warmer than today. That’s 3.6°C warmer than the “preindustrial temperature”, far above the impending terror temperature of 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial that they keep scaring us with.
There were modern humans around for both of those hot spells, along with most modern life forms. It wasn’t an “existential crisis”. It wasn’t a crisis at all. It was a warm time.
And humans also existed through the glacial periods. In total, humans have seen a swing of +2°C warmer than today’s temperature to -9°C cooler than modern times … a very wide swing.
Next, the orange/black line at the right is the post-1850 warming. As you can see, the Vostok data indicates that the world has been warmer than today, both earlier during this interglacial as well as in every one of the previous interglacials in the record.
Call me crazy, but I’m not seeing any reason to panic or to demolish the fossil fuel economy in any of that …
Moving on, how about the Vostok CO2 data? Here’s a graph comparing the Vostok CO2 (right scale) and temperature (left scale) data.

Figure 3. Vostok Ice Core CO2 and Temperature.
So … is CO2 related to temperature? Is CO2 the secret temperature control?
The two are definitely related. And given the length of the dataset, almost half a million years, we can see that there is a clear physical relationship over the entire time. Either CO2 causes temperature changes, or temperature causes CO2 changes, or they both affect the other. As you might imagine, in nature the latter situation is the most common.
But regardless of the causation, clearly Figure 3 shows the long-term equilibrium relationship of the two. So we can investigate the various conditions.
First, let’s assume that CO2 is controlling the temperature. Analysis of the data in Figure 3 yields:
Change in temperature (∆T) = 13.4°C per doubling of CO2 (“climate sensitivity”)
Hmmm, sez I … the accepted value for climate sensitivity is not 13.4°C / 2xCO2. It’s somewhere around 2°C to 4°C / 2xCO2, far lower.
So let’s look at the opposite possibility, that temperature is changing the CO2. Analysis reveals the following relationship:
Change in CO2 (ppmv) = 9 ppmv per °C
Hmmm, sez I … seems possible. As the oceans warm, they outgas. However, that’s not enough to explain the modern CO2 increase.
Finally, it’s certainly possible that they are each affecting the other. CO2 might be adding a bit of warming or cooling to the changes of whatever’s driving the variations seen in Figure 2. Unfortunately, there’s no way to calculate that.
What else can we learn from the Vostok data? Folks keep talking about the speed of the current warming. Their claim is that the world can’t evolve or acclimatize fast enough to encomass the current rate of warming.
However, the Vostok data shows other times in the Holocene that it’s warmed (or cooled) that fast.

Figure 4. Warming rates in the Holocene, from the Vostok ice core data.
Finally, here’s a look at the ice core data overlaid with the modern changes in both CO2 and temperature.

Figure 5. Temperatures and CO2 levels. As in Figure 3, but with both ice core and modern observational data shown.
Hmmm, sez I, once again …
So that’s what I learned from the Vostok data—that humans have been through warmer periods many times in the past without them being an “existential crisis”, that oceanic outgassing isn’t the cause of the modern CO2 increase, and the speed of modern warming is far from unprecedented.
A rare day of soothing May rain here in California. At the end of last year, all the climate models and climatologists were predicting another very dry year … instead, it’s been one of the wetter years in history. The world’s best prognosticators were not just a little wrong. They were 100%, top to bottom and side to side wrong.
And these are the same models and folks who claim they can tell us what the average global temperature will be in 2100AD … yeah, that’s totally legit.
My best to all,
w.
PS—When you comment, please quote the exact words you’re referring to. This avoids many misunderstandings.
Willis, what is the basis for the temperature estimates? If they are derived from CO2 concentrations, then this is a circular argument. And how valid are the temperature derivations, what is their uncertainty, and can they be independently corroborated?
Look at fig 3. When CO2 is at its highest temperatures start dropping. When CO2 is at its lowest temperatures start rising.
That is an inverse relationship. It is the elephant in the China shop. Why ignore what this tells us?
CO2 CANNOT be both the cause and its opposite. The ancient Greeks knew this. It is an error of logic.
I say this all the time. This would not occur if atmospheric CO2 was a “driver” of temperature. The ice cores show an influence of temperature on atmospheric CO2 levels. The do NOT show an effect of atmospheric CO2 levels on temperature, that is but an article of faith.
Note that I agree with “Chris Hall” that the above assertion is incorrect.
See also the post by “Aimee” responding to “Fred H Haynie” above, which includes a link to the Jouzel et al (1997) paper titled “Validity of the temperature reconstruction from water isotopes in ice cores”, for more details on this issue.
– – – – –
NCEI have a nice website allowing access to a lot of ice-core data.
URL : https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology/ice-core
Using their “Search” option for Antarctica leads (eventually) to the following “interesting” datasets.
Jouzel et al, 2007, “EPICA Dome C – 800KYr Deuterium Data and Temperature Estimates”Direct URL : https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/6080
Luthi et al, 2008 : “EPICA Dome C – 800KYr CO2 Data”Direct URL : https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/6091
Note that I have an “old” copy of the Luthi et al data which had entries for each component in addition to the “Composite” result, including the following metadata :
Extracting and analysing gas bubbles is much harder than melting the ice and extracting deuterium and/or O18 ratios.
They reused the “coarse timescale” Vostok data for CO2 from 393 to 22 kya, which includes the Eemian interglacial period.
– – – – –
Most people look at the timing of the rising edges of glacial-to-interglacial transitions when attempting to answer this question.
To me a more “visually striking” answer can be found in the initial falling “dip” after the Eemian Climate Optimum around 130 kya.
From roughly 129 to 117 kya CO2 levels basically just “moved sideways / bounced around” between 265 and 280 ppm.
Temperatures, however, followed more of a “long and low dead-cat bounce and then keep smoothly falling” curve.
Around 113 kya a “tipping point” was reached, and CO2 levels then abruptly “broke down” and followed temperatures as they continued dropping (until ~108 kya at least, when temperatures rebounded).
NB : This is just one 20,000 year period out of a 800,000 year pair of datasets.
It doesn’t “prove” (or disprove) anything. It’s just an “interesting” observation on my part.
Follow-up post.
When I was looking at the EPICA (Dome C) datasets, several years ago now, I checked the difference in time resolution between the Vostok (0-420 kya) and EPICA (0-22 and 393-800 kya) sampling regimes.
Anyone who thinks ice-core data is “regular” should carefully examine the graph I came up with at the time (attached below), and maybe rethink their assumptions.
From the data that is shown, if CO2 were the thermostat that some claim then it should today be much warmer than it actually is but clearly it is not. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate. in the freely downloaded e-book; “The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet, Poyet indicates several reasons while AGW is falsified by science. This article seems to be in agreement with the falsification of AGW.
All here should revisit Paleoclimate Cycles are Key Analogs for Present Day (Holocene) Warm Period – Watts Up With That?
The unique perspective of Renee Hannon’s work is the use of sequence stratigraphic methods to dissect the past 5 interglacial cycles.
Some of the CO2 in the air bubbles is absorbed into the ice:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16C2FF52DC79BA7A58AF069168183F1D/S0022143000033487a.pdf/co2_in_natural_ice.pdf
Or into meltwater brine that is present in glacial ice at temperatures as cold as 70 degrees below zero Celsius.
Air bubbles in ice are not the “closed system” they represent them as.
A nice commentor on a previous thread found this graph for me which is the global temperature proxy record from the 1990 IPPC report:
Your data from the ice cores seems to have long time periods per data point (slice). Can you zoom in on the last 1000 years to see how they correlate?
Jim
While EPICA reused the Vostok CO2 data from 22-393 kya they made the effort to update the latest, Holocene, glacial-to-interglacial transition with a finer set of “slices” of their ice core.
Unfortunately it still isn’t really good enough to do what you are asking for.
Maybe one of the Greenland cores, GRIP or GISP2 (?), has that resolution … my investigations a few years ago, and the accompagning graphics I dredged up from my hard disk, were limited to “Vostok + EPICA”.
Some good points in this article but there are a few contentious issues.
This is not the end of snowfall in the mountains of Kalifornia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
CO2 is clearly not the control knob for climate, and the push to control and limit the fossil fuel industry is clearly political. Tell a big lie often enough and eventually it gets accepted as the truth. When whole economies collapse under the weight of measures put in place to fight non existent catastrophic man made global warming, the worm will turn. All it will take is a couple of colder than normal winters in a row in Europe and North America.
Willis, your discussion on the question, “ … is CO2 related to temperature? Is CO2 the secret temperature control?” was, IMV good.
I would add a couple of thoughts . Yes the T increase was very large relative to the CO2 increase, AND we already know the purported harmful warming effects of CO2 exhibit a logarithmic decline as CO2 concentration increases. Each CO2 doubling is expected to produce the same initial warming; thus 100 ppm to 200 ppm, increases warming a theoretical amount, and 200 ppm has to double to 400 ppm to have the same effect as the prior 100 ppm increase, and so on – then 400 ppm CO2 concentration must double to 800 ppm to again have the same effect as the initial 100 ppm increase.
So, as you pointed out, the warming preceded the CO2 increase, cause before affect, and we know the climate sensitivity, by all accounts way lower then the warming observed, continually decreases as CO2 increases, while the CO2 benefits, increased production of bio-life, with zero increase in water or land acreage required, plus CO2 makes crops more drought, heat, and frost resistant – geographically expanding growing zones and growing seasons, continue to increase in a linear fashion as climate warming sensitivity reduces.
Thanks for all your work.