Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.
It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.
- NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.
- NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.
Beware of making conclusions about turning points
or lags when only one single point may be involved. - NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data
is 150,000-100,000 years ago.
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
Permission for use: These images are available for media and non-profit use. As a courtesy please email me “joanne AT joannenova.com.au” (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’). Thank you. There are also larger files available in tif format for printing. Click on the link to the right hand side of each graph.
Note: The temperatures here are measured in relation to the present temperature. In other words, most of the time for the last million years it’s been much colder.
MORE INFO
Other posts on Vostok Ice Cores.
- Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures
- The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings
- Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?
- Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the Vostok Ice Cores?
- See Palisad for the most informative detailed graphics on what the Vostok and Dome Ice cores mean and why they strongly mathematically suggest CO2 follows temperatures and has little effect on them.This is what you need to see to understand “feedback” or the postulated “amplification”.
- A colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is here.
- Excellent summary of the papers on the lag… at CO2 science.
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/reports/location?dataTypeId=7&search=true
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
 |
||
| Click here for a larger TIFF image…or.. JPG image | ||
Update: Aug 18 2013 adding page links.
_____________________________________
Last Update: Oct 18 2020: The original data was stored at CDIAC: here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat and http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2. But both these links are now defunct.
[…] Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years, as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. […]
80
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/ […]
40
[…] is indeed not from a scientific source. Little bit of detective work shows that this is yet another blog post graph you are showing. It says that the graph has been "scaled" so that the lag is visible to […]
78
[…] trend to note here is that the concentration of CO2 seems to lag behind changes in temperature. It appears that the fluctuations in temperature actually cause CO2 levels to fluctuate […]
72
[…] CO2, it is a likely assumption to state that with warmer temperatures the ocean lets off more CO2. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3…-and-ice-ages/ The main point to be made here is CO2 […]
73
[…] (2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect. […]
112
[…] […](2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect. […]
81
[…] for CO2 in the upper atmosphere to warm the lower. The greenhouse isn’t sealed. Rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming, not a […]
52
[…] Les carottes glaciaires montrent que les taux de CO2 suivent les changements de température plusieurs centaines d’années après. VOIR LES GRAPHIQUES DE VOSTOK. […]
30
[…] Les carottes glaciaires montrent que les taux de CO2 suivent les changements de température plusieurs centaines d’années après. VOIR LES GRAPHIQUES DE VOSTOK. […]
31
[…] cover over 600,000 years, so the 800 year lag is to miniscule to see with the naked eye. If you zoom in on the graph, the lag is […]
64
[…] Temperatures changed before CO2 levels […]
51
[…] At least according to the valsock Ice core samplings.The opposite has historicly never occured. The 800 year lag – graphed « JoNova I have three questions. One; What heat event 600 to 800 years ago caused our current increases in […]
51
[…] […]
30
[…] not like Lake Vostok was that important, it only provides a peek into 400,000 years of temperature and CO2 data. Scientists still disagree about what the data shows, which makes the Russian decision to pour […]
70
[…] de faire ce lien dans son film bourré de mensonges, mais dans la réalité, l’étude des carottes de glaces de Vostok montrent que durant les nombreux changements climatiques qui se sont produits durant les derniers […]
41
[…] telling us of the lack of warming for the past decade, correcting the public misperceptions of the Vostok ice cores or just more outrageous […]
40
[…] to watch, but it is worth noting the interviewer’s interesting perspective on the 800 year lag in the Vostok ice cores, who seems to think the heat and carbon record speak for themselves, and that the debate is over. […]
50
The CO2 follows life. More life = more CO2 around, less life less CO2. It is not a function of temperature but life on earth itself….
Hotter = more life
Colder = less life
That’s why CO2 can be high and we can fall into an ice age, then life dies and CO2 drops
91
Hi Nova, I’m sure this has been pointed out to you before ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html ) but the lag is not proof that CO2 is not a GHG.
Had you taken the time to read the science YOU CITE you might have realised this and saved yourself the embarrasment.
Caillon et al 2003 says …
(The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.) CTS
(I posted the Abstract because it does not support your quote.Which is speculative and unsupported in the paper.Meanwhile the ABSTRACT make it clear that some other cause for the warming went on for many centuries,without the help of CO2.Realcimate make the same error as you do.Assume that magically after 800 years +/- 200 years of sleeping.It takes over the warming cause and go on from there.All without evidence that it happened that way.) CTS
1210
As you may have noticed blimey, there is no such thing as ‘too debunked’ on this website. Every argument for climate inaction gets trotted out from time to time.
85
Yes I know. CTS’s response shows that they don’t bother to read the science beyond the small section they wish to promote.
(Gee whiz.The ABSTRACT I posted,was too much for you eh?) CTS
78
Jo, you say that the CO2 lag is proof that CO2 is not a major driver of climate. When faced with the response of ‘C02 amplifies the warming’ you contend that this would result in a runaway greenhouse effect.
However, this is not the case. Positive feedback only progresses to infinity if the feedback is larger than the inputs. Given the positive feedback between temp:C02 is smaller than the input, you can find the theoretical end point of the cycle via limit theorem.
As for Cook, I don’t see what he has to do with my comment but he can defend himself if he cares to. I certainly don’t share all of his opinions.
46
Aha, you cracked it… Not. What you don’t get is that as the feedback becomes greater the stability is lower. That is the system starts to oscillate, there is no evidence of any oscillation in heating, Conveniently, the climate scientists use a scalar model which ignores time lags and presumes you can superpose all the feedback. Well I’d like to tell you and then that you can’t ignore the fact that individual feedbacks occur with different lags. The consensus position implies a feedback ratio of more than 0.9 for the positive feedbacks. That’s so close to unity it’s going to be unstable. Yet we see of course that climate is stable to less than 2 parts in 288 <1%. Remarkable stability for a system the ipcc tells us is on the verge of oscillation.
It's not a good idea to misrepresent feedback to an EE.
71
@CTS – would you mind posting in your own post rather than editing mine when it’s not necessary.
I am pointing out that scientists agree that during the interglacials, CO2 lagged temperature – it acted as a feedback and helped warm the planet more than would have been possible from the Milankovitch cycles alone.
This time the GHGs we emit are the initial force rather than the much slower solar forcing changes due to Milankovitch cycles.
(Since you bring up the interglacial periods.How come CO2 increase very slowly for thousands of years from the estimated 180 ppm to 280 ppm.While temperature several times changed radically for centuries of several degrees?
This present interglacial has been cooling for thousands of years now.The charts are right here in this blog:
LINK to CHARTS
Both VOSTOCK and GREENLAND ice core data shows this very clearly) CTS
63
Blimey / Brendon:
1. I have never said “the lag is proof that CO2 is not a GHG.” You can apologize for the misquote when what I did say is written on this very page. Perhaps you could read it?
2. I read Callion: He has no evidence in his paper to back up that statement you quote, it’s just pure speculation. That he said it rather proves that people have to write bland mindless caveats into their papers in order to get published.
3. Tristan: Just because John Cook reckons something is so doesn’t make it true. Indeed when I have bothered to debunk Cook, Cook had no reply, and didn’t apologize for all his errors, or his use of a flagrantly deceptive graph either.
4. Blimey, my moderators can write where ever they so choose. Get over it. If you lift your standards and quote me instead of attacking strawmen they won’t have the urge to write all over your sloppy comments eh?
5. Go on, both of you, find one paper that calculates climate sensitivity due to CO2 (ie.demonstrating the positive feedbacks) from the ice core data post 1999.
202
Joanne Nova says:
I apologise. I’m glad you agree CO2 is a GHG and it has a warming effect. From the way you go on about the lag so much it appears as if you think CO2 does not have a warming effect. To the casual reader it looks almost as if you are intentionally misleading them.
[I have repeated that CO2 causes minor warming maybe 100 times on my blog. Only a religious reader could ignore that. JN]
And your peer-reviewed rebuttal can be found where exactly?
[I’m just stating the obvious. Go read Caillon and find the evidence within it that supports that speculative statement.
If a scientific paper said 2+2=5, (pace Keenan) I don’t need to publish a peer reviewed paper to point out the flaw. JN]
What’s the term for cherry picking out only the small section of science that supports your own beliefs and ignoring the rest? Oh that’s right, it’s “cherry picking”.
[…Also known as IPCC standard procedure. JN]
I don’t mind dispensing with poor science, should it turn out to be that way, but you need to back up your claim with evidence, not just your own opinion.
[I did. See my commentary and graphs on this page. JN]
It’s the science Cook cites that’s important, and he doesn’t cherry pick just a piece of abstract.
[How is it cherry picking when I’m talking about his major conclusion, backed by the evidence in his paper? Do you think I’m supposed to reprint speculative caveats which have no data to back them up every time too? JN]
I’ve not seen CO2Science correct their graph on ocean acidification either.
[So I gather you concede that Cook used a deceptive graph, perhaps unwittingly, but never disclosed that to his readers, or objected to it’s use… JN]
CTS’s posting an abstract had nothing to do with my standard of comment.
I agree your moderators can and will write wherever they like. That doesn’t make it appropriate. The copy/paste of an abstract, without any comment from the moderator added nothing to this discussion. They would have been better to cite the abstract and explain their reasoning for the citation.
Doing so in a new post rather than editing my post will make this topic flow better.
Really Jo? You’ve agreed that CO2 is a GHG (thus it traps heat – and you seem to agree on this although you’ve a slightly twisted concept of climate sensitivity -it’s not specific to CO2 but to any forcing. Perhaps your confused because it is quite often expressed as per doubling of CO2). You’ve also agreed that Temperature controlled CO2.
So when the temperature rises, the CO2 levels increase and therefore, because CO2 is a GHG then it causes even more heating. That’s a positive feedback.
I’m not sure why you wish to venture into climate sensitivity at this point, but here’s an answer for you anyway.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf
[Thanks. I’ll reply to that in a comment when I have time to look at it. But I must say I’ll be amazed if it’s not just another model guesstimate. JN]
Or perhaps you could have looked at any of the others I listed last time you made this request instead of ignoring me.
68
Tristan #20.2 Yes, exactly — What I said was nothing like what Blimey claimed. You’re sorry about that right?
As for Cook, you “me too’ed” 100% of Blimey’s proof (which was the Cook link and the speculative caveat). You own it too.
As for the “runaway” greenhouse effect. I realize that f < unity does not guarantee a runaway effect. But f = .65 (IPCC) is still so high in a multivariate system that it's inherently unstable. All it takes is a few other parameters to shift through their natural ranges and given a billion years, would go off the scale. No natural stable state has a positive feedback as wildly high as 0.65.
See my point 5 above. The Climate Scare has no paper to support their claims of amplification. It's speculation. Is it 0.1, or 0.65? Who knows, but based on the past 500 million years 0.65 is highly unlikely.
141
Actually Jo, the consensus position implies 0.65 – 0.7 loop gain, which is unstable enough. But that is the net loop gain. In gross terms we have known negative feedback of a factor of 0.2 delta T , but a tatal net gain of around 3 delta T , so that implies that the gross positive feedback = 15, which is a loop gain of 0.94 if I recall correctly. Since one of the biggest negative feedbacks is loss to space via the atmospheric window this result implies that anywhere radiation to space is retarded eg under a tree, runaway heating will occur. Absurd.
It’s a simple mistake, Any EE can tell you that you can’t superpose (add up ) feedbacks with different delays. The oscillations are caused by phase coincidences at delays the feedbacks reinforce not by the nett dc gain. This is why EEs use complex number math and Fourier transforms to characterise gain. Phase ( time delay ) is important.
Ultimately anyway, what the ipcc say implies positive feedback with feedback ratio of 0.94 which is impossible for a system that is stable to less than 2 degrees in 288 degrees.
21
Blimey / Brendan / whoeveryouare, you write so much inconsequential baseless stuff (see my inline replies above) that on those 1 in 100 comments when you write something that matters I do miss it.
Thanks for the papers, now to show that you have read them and know something about them and are not just here to waste my time, you can explain in your own words how they calculated climate sensitivity due to CO2 and whether it was empirical as I asked for, or just based on models that we know to be fatally flawed.
Of course, you have read the papers haven’t you? You aren’t just taking them on “faith”?
161
But once again you fail to quantify that amount, nor do you present any science to support your view. “Blogger science” is worthless.
Que? You misquoted me, apologized, and now expect me to quantify how many times you were wrong?
Caillon is not stating that 2+2=5, Caillon states that CO2 is a feedback. This is not speculative, but based on the knowledge that CO2 is a GHG and that Temperature was causing CO2 levels to rise, both which you agreed.
This means CO2 was acting as a positive feedback. For you to state that you no longer wish to agree with Caillon on this point is like having a logical disagreement with yourself.
OK, you admit you can’t find any evidence in the Caillon paper to back up his statements on feedback.
So you don’t deny cherry picking? You’re happy to cherry pick and thereby deliberately mislead people. Interesting!
And you can’t find an example of me cherry picking. the best you can do is read something that wasn’t there, and leap with wild inferred excitement to the “proof” of something you want to find.
And so can you show me where in the IPCC report they cherry pick temperature data the same way you do?
Blimey/Brendan/anonymous fan, we did this to death. You accuse me of not explaining every caveat in a headline, even though I got the text right.
You have written nothing that contradicts Caillon suggestion that CO2 is a positive feedback.
I’m not the one pretending that Caillon is evidence for positive feedback. You are. You find the observations. I said they’re NOT there. I’ll quote the evidence he didn’t provide “……”. Does that help?
No, I’m not aware of the graph you refer to.
See here
I am aware that CO2Science Hides the Decline when they present unrealistic CO2 level projections.
Idso quotes 1100 studies to show that acidification is not the guaranteed disaster that it’s made out to be, and you find one study of the 1100 that says that one of the many species that benefit from more CO2 is an algae? That’s it? And many of the other papers you find quote damage at very low pH’s, which will not occur in the next 3000 years.
Where can I find your method of determining climate sentivity? How do YOU calculate a projection for comparison against empirical data?
(Please don’t go citing Idso again – we’ve been down that path and Idso’s methods were fundamentally flawed such that today NO climate scientist, even skeptical ones, accept his findings.)
Brimey, I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do. Oh look an anonymous commenter reckons climate scientist Idso is “flawed”, based on… his opinion.
I see your skill with statistics is inversely proportional to that of your cherry picking ability. 😉
[Cherry picking = 0. Skill with stats = infinite. You are far too kind.]
Oh a tangent question not in the least bit connected to why CO2 is a feedback – FWIW …
No. not a tangent. That is the whole point. You claim the climate sensitivity is high, but you can’t name any empirical evidence to back it up.
No Jo, I’m not a climate scientist and whilst I can follow the basics I am quite happy to admit that the more advanced workings are beyond my current understanding. But that’s the difference between you and I. I’m an expert in a completely different field and I will concede that the experts in the field of climatology know a lot more about it than I do. Another difference between you and I is that acccept all of the science unless new science shows it to be flawed. And that science MUST come from the peer-reviewed process, whilst not perfect, it’s certainly much better than making crap up and posting it on a blogger website.
I will also take this opportunity to once again point out they even I with my limited knowledge know that you are wrong when you say … “Climate sensitivity refers to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate.”. Whilst often expressed per doubling of CO2, climate sensitivity is the temperature response to a given amount of radiative forcing, no matter what the source of forcing.
Hence you can even estimate the climate sensitivity from ice cores where the solar forcing drove the change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sample_calculation_using_ice-age_data
People that have spent many years studying the science in one area are generally much better at it than some blogger on the internet. Especially when that blogger is easily exposed for their cherry picking methods and lack of understand in even something so basic as the definition of climate sensitivity.
Yeah, I’ll accept the scientific consensus on matters that are beyond my own understanding every single time.
75
sorry to comment on such a old post, but I saw this comment and had to respond.
Popular beliefs in history found to be incorrect:
– The existence of witches, that resulted in ~200,000 or more “witches” were tortured, burnt or hanged in the Western world from 1500 until around 1800.
– Ulcers are caused by stress. Actually found to be a bacterial infection.
– Flat Earth, To my amazement people still believe this. But the proof states otherwise.
more examples can be found here Superseded scientific theories
General agreement (consensus) does not equal proof. Following the consensus and not investigating the facts for yourself is lazy and irresponsible.
51
Also, if this issue is beyond your understanding why do you advocate one way or another?
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Strength to Love, 1963 – Martin Luther King.
61
So you concede you take those papers on “faith” and can’t explain how they calculated climate sensitivity. (I looked btw, and they are based on models.)
Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out. We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.
Yawn, In the end, basically I’m “wrong” because I’m a blogger. It doesn’t matter how much evidence I cite, nor the impeccable logic I speak, nor that I quote experts. If I was a certified expert, you’d know I was right, even if I disagreed with other certified experts (and they’d be right too, of course).
What a bog-of-confusion.
It’s known as argument from authority, and there is no point continuing the conversation. There is nothing I could say that would change your mind. You are stuck in the stone age logic of pandering to your chosen Gods.
I’ve added in a few inline comments above, some of the non-sequiteurs are not worth cut and pasting. They don’t make sense even in context.
183
No, I expect you to read properly and quantify the “minor” effect. You don’t provide any scientific evidence for why you think the CO2 effect is minor.
See “evidence” in the site index.
Contrast that to the science in the IPCC report which shows the amount of forcing GHG have.
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-23.jpg
When will you provide such evidence or analysis?
See “evidence” in the site index.
[snip incoherent ]
[snip repetitive – he sill can’t provide any evidence to back up the Caillon speculative caveat.]
Did you miss the post about you cherry picking UAH data in your handbook?
UAH data agree with both major radiosondes sets. RSS is known to have a warm bias. Your team pick GISS all the time because it’s the highest.
https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/theres-been-no-warming-since-2001-er-no-better-make-that-2010/
No I accused you of cherry picking. You accept only the science that supports your preconceived opinion and you reject out of hand anything you disagree with, even when it is pointed out that you never supply evidence to support your position.
except for hundreds of posts when I do. See “evidence” in the site index. See also “New Here”, The Skeptics Handbook I and II.
[snip off topic]
[snip baby-like bluster without any reference or substantiation].
No, I picked out the most obvious one to demonstrate why Idso’s shallow analysis method is flawed.
And I listed numerous other problems here … https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/nova-on-acid/ … to which you seem oblivious or lack the ability to counter argue.
[snip condescending vacuous non-reason]
[snip, irrational. When you give us your real name we will bother to spell it properly]
[snip more bluster with no substantiation]
By anonymous blogger, do you mean climate scientist publishing in peer-reviewed journals?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/
Idso’s methods do not get repeated these days by any other climate scientist. That’s because they were shown to be flawed, not because I said so.
[snip – see my comment below]
[snip bluster]
Gosh it’s remarkable that you write this and COMPLETELY IGNORE THE LINK GIVEN WHICH SHOWS THE CALCULATION BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
This is what I mean by incoherent. Which link? What paper? What evidence? See below in my comment.
[snip baseless repetition]
[snip bluster]
We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.
It’s always been problematic. But that begs the question, how do you know it’s low or is this just more of your wishful thinking without evidence?
Transient sensitivity is defined as 20 years and even that’s lower and shorter than equilibrium conditions. I suggest you try again Nova, perhaps after you understand the definition.
[Which agrees with my point. The data from ice cores doesn’t have the resolution even if it is a 20 year “equilibrium. ]
No, you seem to be wrong because you fail to look at ALL of the evidence.
You are wrong because you cherry pick only the small sections of data that agree with your viewpoint and ignore all other science that shows the planet is warming.
You are not right simply because you state something. You need to follow that up with evidence. Scientific evidence.
Note: he/ she/ it /they don’t provide any convincing evidence.
I’ve asked for your calculations on climate sensitivity estimates many times already. Your answer is “I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do.”.
See “evidence” in the site index. I list hundreds of papers.
That’s not supplying evidence.
[snip off-topic repetition I’ve already answered]
[snip irrational]
[snip incoherent. I have never once said CO2 is not a feedback. ]
[snip bluster]
And on a topic where you can’t get the definition of climate sensitivity right, let alone begin to calculate it, yes I’ll take their opinion over yours EVERY SINGLE TIME.
[snip drivel]
As said before, you can always ask for polite clarification rather than pretending a question doesn’t make sense.
64
To Anonymous ——, site policy is that we simply don’t have the time to edit comments. Nor do we normally allow someone who repeatedly breaks laws of reason to comment. You’ve admitted you use argument from authority as your main “analysis tool”.
Obviously, whoever is writing the Blimey stuff fails that logic bar, and self-editing requirement completely. I should have kept the ban on (he’s been blocked once as “Brendan” and using two identities is another reason to ban). But since sometimes he posts a link to an interesting paper I allowed him, it, her, them, to post, just in case he could point to another interesting paper. Silly me.
It’s easy to waste a bloggers time. Blimey tactics:
1. Post long link-filled comments, where most of the sentences are written in condescending smug bombastic terms, often incoherent too.
2. Post links to papers he doesn’t understand and can’t explain or discuss the evidence. But then claim unscientifically, that they must be right, they are peer reviewed, and from an expert. This guarantees no real scientific dialogue is possible. He has an infinite number of irrelevant, flawed, incomplete, out of date papers to draw on, and no need to read them first.
3. Accuse me of deceiving people but hypocritically get huffy when I point out he writes in an incoherent style. He expects me to ask for “clarification”, but he’s free to invent insults.
4. Demand I justify points which I’ve blogged on repeatedly but who are too lazy to use my index. (See “evidence”, and “New Here?”)
5. Invent strawmen. eg “Like the way you contradict yourself on CO2 being a feedback. Ooops!”
6. React with faux indignation at non-points, ie defending his anonymous pseudonym.
7. Go off topic,
8. Repeat steps 1 – 7 ad nauseum.
No I don’t have time to get into long conversations with anonymous time wasters.
For the Record:
The Idso rebuttals he quoted are an fallacious ad hom, they are:
1/ about Craig Idso’s father
2/ written about different papers to the ones I quote on another topic.
3/ Was rebutted and updated years ago by Sherwood Idso (as it happens)
He/she/it discounts all of one man’s work based on attacks on his father. Then cherry picks papers (the idso rebuttal was from the same edition of the journal he quotes above, but he didn’t list it), and accuse me of cherry picking. (I prefer the UAH series BTW because 1 it agrees with the radiosondes best in the Upper T, 2/ the other satellite series RSS is known to have a slight warm bias, 3/ Giss et al uses ground stations are near airports and tarmacs.)
The single point in his long comment that relates to the original post, and the evidence, is a repeat assertion about “a paper” (as usual, he don’t tell us which paper, just refer to “one of the links” above) said this:
“We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.”
I did read all the papers he suggested in a comment above — Hansen 2008, Royer 2007, Chylek 2008. Royer and Chylek are models as I expected. If he meant Hansen 2008? – he didn’t read it — Hansens aim to “verify” models with paleo data. It’s the “best” but horribly confounded, very circular, and demonstrates nothing. That’s why even Hansen didn’t get excited about this paper.
It doesn’t have the resolution to test cause and effect. They assume a climate sensitivity of 3/4°C per W/m2 and then use models to calculate a global temperature scale, which not surprisingly fits the known pattern, which proves nothing. With a flawed model, and sea levels (at a resolution of a few thousands years) they can produce a graph a lot like “the real one”. But temperatures drive the CO2 curve, and they also drive sea levels. It’s just not possible to extract the climate sensitivity from that confounded mix.
The neolithic unscientific reasoning “by authority”, and ad homs don’t meet the standards of logic for commenters here. For the minimal benefit of dubious papers he brings, he requires too much editing.
No more from Brendan-blimey. I’ll go back to unpacking people with real names, who write material coherent enough to be published by real news sources.
Jo
The Evidence:
The repeated request for evidence from someone too lazy to look before scoffing with fake zeal: From the New Here page:
Off the top of my head: Lindzen and Choi 2011 (and 2010), Douglass and Keen (Argo), Christie et al 2010, McKitrick 2010 (and correngium updated 2011). Spencer and Braswell 2010 updated 2011. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. 2010.
——————
PS: Seriously Blimey– it’s been nice, and I’m flattered and all — wish I had the time to keep helping you with the basics of logic and sentence construction, but I have to get back to writing about people who have reputations that matter. I do hope you graduate to a real name one day. You have potential.
164
[…] how about the fact that the earth gets warm, then 800 years later, CO2 levels decide to […]
30
[…] current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome ice cores show that the temperature rises before the atmospheric […]
40
Are these people for real? Well they are welcome to join John Cook and Tim Flummery et.al feeding –it and CO2 to my Rose’s and veggies they grow so much better.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is life.We live in a beautiful ever changing World,stop moaning and enjoy it.
50
[…] ages.The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome ice cores show that the temperature rises before the atmospheric […]
30
[…] ages. The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome ice cores show that the temperature rises before the atmospheric carbon […]
20
[…] fact is Vostok ice records show that temperature rises first and CO2 levels follow…by 800 […]
20
[…] […]
20
[…] questioning whether it will really make you happy. Oh the dilemma of the tree hugger………. The ice cores tell us Co2 follows temperature by hundreds of years, therefore logically the rise in Co2 is a result of warming, not a cause. Tree rings are a circus, […]
20
[…] Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. (2003). Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731. [Discussion, CO2science] [Graphs] […]
20
How bout some evidence gas extracted from ice cores are in a pristine state and accurately represent atmospheric conditions that are contemporary with the formation of the ice…..
AFAIK that evidence doesn’t exist. It is an assumption.
If that assumption is wrong. The house of cards collapses.
21
[…] C02 lags temperature […]
30
[…] une illustration, parmi beaucoup d'autres, de ces retards CO2/Température, tels que tirée des données officielles […]
20
Love the debate.
While many of us humans have got a lot to answer for, I think my government and the media are picking the arguments that suit them and then using them to exaggerate the extent of our initial influence on the atmosphere. My biggest concern is what those in government say are our duties and responsibilities to somehow slow or stop or reverse(?!!!) the climatic variations by paying a new carbon tax.
I saw this lag of temperature increase with my students – years ago and it fascinated us then. Initially counter-intuitive, we then accepted that the mechanisms are more complex than we ever imagined. While we’re not fearful, we ARE fascinated. Milankovitch is a bit of a hero.
Could you please direct me to other blogs that have got this debate going?
To the real point of this post: I just read a news article that states: “The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has broken above 400 parts per million for the first time in three million year(sic),indicating a record level for greenhouse gases.”
If Vostok ice core data looks at the last 400,000 years or so, where is the data obtained for the 2,600,000 years before that?
Thank you Joanne and others.
Nando
50
Nando, the ice cores go back about 800k but can’t get a lot further back. To estimate past CO2 levels people use other proxy studies – marine sediments, plant stomata, and boron or carbon isotopes.
In any case, 400ppm is still low in historical terms. CO2 levels were 10 times higher 400 million years ago. See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html.
A good source of information is http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/carbondioxide.php
Cheers!
Jo
110
Thanks Jo.
30
The climate scientist Waleed Abdalati mentions this lag and points out that the increase in temps happens much faster than the cooling events, an indication that the greenhouse gas slows the cooling part of the Milankovitch cycle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GveM2ygxOLg
22
The interesting part of the Vostok ice core is not the increase in temperature from a glaciation to an interglacial. The opposite period is far more interesting.
Have a look at the 150-100 kyear period:
During the warming 135-130 kyear, there is a huge overlap between temperature increase and CO2 increase. That allows the modellers to include an important influence from CO2 on temperature.
But in the period 125-115 kyears, temperatures (and CH4 levels) go down until a new minimum (and land ice to a new maximum), while CO2 levels remain high. When CO2 levels ultimately go down with ~40 ppmv, there is no discernable influence on temperature (or ice sheet formation). That points to a low response of temperature to CO2 levels…
90
[…] 6 – The Vostok Ice Core Data shows we’ve seen temperatures and CO2 levels like this before and more importantly, CO2 levels follow temperature changes (not the other way around) – see here. […]
40
Has anyone factored in the effect of the latent heat of fusion? Clearly to melt so much ice there has to be huge heat input without any rise in temperature. Once a dynamic equilibrium has been reached, continued heat input will cause a temperature increase. Clearly in previous interglacial cycles there was little to zero human impact. With the current latter stage of a warming cycle it appears that humans may well have increased concentrations of carbon dioxide but surely it is not proven that this is causing catastrophic results
[Rob, I am sure that latent heat is included in model calcs. – Jo]
20
[…] provide a link to debunk perhaps the most important image in the history of global warmism, Al Gore’s Ice Core chart. Recall how important this was in forming the myth? Note that, it turned out the rise in CO2 […]
20
I’ve linked this page in a post that goes through some of the images that were used to lead the Crowd-think into Global Warmism.
http://whyarethingsthisway.com
20
So uh, where’s your graph that tells us what will happen when the CO2 hits 400? And 500? And 600? Where’s your graph that tells us what the temperature will be when atmospheric soot and sulfer dioxide and methane doubles from our present amounts. Let’s see, we’ve added a whole bunch of shit in the last 100 years. We should be able to double that in say only another 50 years. Where’s your graph that tells us this has no effect on temperature? Where’s your graph that shows that all this shit follows temperature and not the other way around? Where’s your graph that shows what happens when somebody dumps 300 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere before any of the natural processes are even anywhere near the required conditions for releasing CO2?
[“Whole bunch of shit” is exactly how much?] ED
31
Here.
30
[“Whole bunch of shit” is exactly how much?] ED
Quite a bit. Enough that vision is greatly diminished. Sunlight amount reaching Earth is greatly diminished. Enough that a brown haze is visible over the entire globe and there are pockets where that brown haze is easily visible from space. In other words a huge pile of shit that no present plant or animal has ever had to deal with. At least not in a time frame that is meaningful to a Homo Sapien. And certainly not any doubling of these amounts. Exactly when do you want to say enough is enough? Or is it always a dictum that if lots is good then more should be just about right? We are already in uncharted territory. To continue on this path is suicidal.
This of course brings up the next point. I have never been able to understand the purpose of relating present conditions to conditions we think may have existed 65 million years ago. 65 million years? There is nothing to suggest man would survive even one single glaciation cycle (because he hasn’t), much less the changes recorded during a 65 million year period. Or any alternate climates within those 65 million years. And by all accounts considering the care he feels for this planet and the abuse heaped on those idiotic tree huggers, I would have to say he will never make even that one single cycle. 65 million years is just a nebulous dream. There is not any indication that he would survive outside the climatic conditions in which he developed. The neanderthal became extinct and he was more robust and had a bigger brain than ours. Our present course of action does not engender much hope. Being arrogant and conceited and certain of our chances are not character traits the forces of nature has much regard for. IMO
20
Replicant, I have good news for you. For 90% of man’s existence it’s been an ice age (aka a glaciation cycle). Somehow, without electricity, we survived.
But if you are worried about real pollution. Join the club. The biggest obstacles to cleaning up real pollution is an ignorant religious fixation on fake pollution. What we need is real science, with real observations. Join us in fighting pollution, start using logic, reason, and empirical evidence. Help the world instead of hurting it…
120
I don’t know what fake pollution is.
agwnonsense wrote –
“Are these people for real? Well they are welcome to join John Cook and Tim Flummery et.al feeding –it and CO2 to my Rose’s and veggies they grow so much better.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is life.”
– more is better. There is nothing natural about anything in our present human world, and that includes CO2 levels. CO2 levels at 400 ppm is anything but natural. Especially when there does not exist any sign on the horizon that some attempt might arrive to halt further increases since there is no indication that I can see that there will be any attempts to curtail our present activity. It is impossible to ignore CO2 and curtail only ‘real pollution’. Curtail real pollution then. Stop the oil sands project in Alberta. That will definitely have an effect on CO2 emissions. If man is to survive every single person must become tree hugger. There are absolutely no alternatives. What do you think the chances are of that happening?
“The biggest obstacles to cleaning up real pollution is an ignorant religious fixation on fake pollution.” I don’t believe this is correct. I believe the biggest obstacle is a religious fixation that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can drive our cars because CO2 doesn’t matter. I believe that statement reflects a concern about something that doesn’t matter.
Thank you for letting me speak my piece. That was very generous of you.
20
Fake pollution obviously is the kind that does not harm us or the environment. The observational evidence suggests CO2 will warm the planet by about 1/6th of what the IPCC suggests. That will likely be beneficial. It already feeds about 5% of the world, and is greening the deserts.
OK. So you should protest on their sites then. Who believes that?
60
[…] is mostly responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. This means temperature (heat) increases BEFORE CO2 not the other way around as we are told every day. If that is the case, then trying to lower our […]
20
The ice gore graph designated as covering a period of 50,000 years to 2500 years is confusing for the reason that it supposedly covers a period starting 2500 years ago, as labeled, but the 5000 year graduations indicate that it starts at year zero because there is no 2500 year graduation. How can this be explained? Is the 2500 year label wrong, or is the graduation in error?
The temperatures shown by the graph seem to be in agreement with those starting at year zero.
————-
REPLY: The temperature data continues to the last century. The CO2 data stops 2500 years ago. -Jo
20
More reliable analysis of Nitrogen 15 isotopes show in fact that gas and temperature changes in ice core measurements are synchronous.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract
20
[…] not one of those folks who loses sleep over CO2 emissions, given the fact rising CO2 has typically followed global warming in our Earth’s history, not pr…, but for those who do fret, the latest EIA data ought to be reassuring. We’ve been lowering […]
20
The Australian Government’s Climate Change department has admitted that C02 rises follow increases in temperature, with a lag of about 800 years. This is the opposite of what Al Gore proposed in his infamous “An Inconvenient Truth” video. Search http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer.
On page 32 of the .pdf: Ice core studies have shown that during past ice ages CO2 levels only started to rise about 800 years after the initial temperature increase. This is because it takes about 800 years for ocean processes to transfer the initial temperature rise to an increase in atmospheric CO2.
From the horse’s mouth.
40
Unfortunately Brian, they can’t limit themselves to stating the truth. They found it necessary to contradict the previous evidence with; “This release of CO2 as the oceans warm then results in further warming”, thus reversing cause and effect.
20
The Australian Department of the Environment has seen fit to remove the link to the former Dep’t Climate Change website, as well as the Vostok file it contained. The admission can now be found at:
20
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/142904/20130920-1151/climatechange.gov.au/node/1422.html.
20
The website given has been removed. Fortunately, the pdf file has been preserved here: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/142904/20130920-1151/climatechange.gov.au/node/1422.html
20
[…] [2] Jo Nova: The 800 year lag – graphed […]
20
[…] [2] Jo Nova: The 800 year lag – graphed […]
20
[…] And lastly, in order to swallow the fear inspired by the headline, we must pay no attention to the scientific evidence that CO2 levels have historically lagged behind corresponding changes in […]
30
[…] evidence from examination of ice cores shows that increases in CO2 levels follow increases in temperature rather than precede them. […]
20
Great information, links and graphs guys, thanks !
There seems to be a lot of talk but little science out there at the moment, it feels a bit like the salem witch trials hysteria.
Perhaps that’s the psychology it gives everyone the chance to have an opinion when the evidence is kind of woolly.
Also if people were NOT worried about climate change you might never have the time spent on earth sciences.
Has anyone come up with a model which incorporates all of the known effects, such as Milankovich cycles, Solar output/Maunder minimum stuff, and various meteorological feedback circuits – or maybe that’s what everyone is trying to do ?
What would be the cause of the observed 5 million year cooling trend ?
At one point the BBC UK Radio put out a statement something like ‘part of the UK has now recorded the highest temperature ever expreienced’ – without even bothering the caveat “in recorded history”. So completely misleading it has driven me to internet research!
Am finding earth-sciences really quite groovy these days .
Peterg, UK.
50
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ […]
20
[…] […]
20
[…] This is absolutely true, but what they do not often recognize is the increases in temperature generally precede the measurable increases in CO2 by about 800 years. This seems to indicate the increase in temperature might cause the increase in CO2, not the other […]
30
[…] gärna här o här. I filmen ”An inconvenient truth” används isborrkärnor som argument för att det finns en […]
20
The temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans are influenced by the sun and geothermal The radiated thermal energy from the sun is proportional to the sun’s surface temperature to the fourth power. Atmospheric temp gain, 6000=0 C;6050=1.18 C;6100=2.39 C. Ocean temp increase causes liberation of CO2 and CH4 Methane. CO2 + CH4 = 2C + 2H2O This reaction is ongoing, slightly exothermic and feasible over a very wide temperature range. Coal , diamonds and oceans came from this reaction and continues. CO2 may be eliminated from flue gas stream from gas fired power stations. CO2 may be partially eliminated from coal fired power station flue gasses. Man’s releases of CO2 have minimal effect on global temperatures but a huge effect on money stolen from citizens.
[You’re commenting in a very old thread dating from 2009. I’ll approve this but I don’t know if any readers will see it.] AZ
50
Thanks for your response.
30
[…] représentant l’évolution du CO2 et de la température au niveau du lac Vostok (Source)(Voir ici par périodes plus courtes pour mieux […]
20
Love it. CO2 lag makes sense. World covered with ICE not a lot going on. Sun (gotta be doesn’t it) fires up, Ice starts to melt, Oceans start to pour out CO2 (as they are wont to do ) that sort of change takes a little while. CO2 feeds plants, plants feed animals etc and provided the big glowey thing in the sky keeps pumping energy in the planet is away. If it were the other way around….CO2 causing planet to heat up….where does the CO2 come from ? ? ? What STOPPED the heat to cause the Ice Age….a lack of CO2? ? ? or the sun went quiet!!!!
30
[…] Source: JoanneNova.com.au […]
20
this lag [[snip] idea] completely ignores the impact of methane, which drops out of the atmosphere fairly quick
co2 increasing starts global warming triggering methane from cold waters which accelerates global warming, the methane drops out after a few decades leaving co2, much slower behind, so temps drop with the impact of methane gone and co2 much slower to calm down
duh
20
[…] na atmosfera? É claro que não! Logo, o controlador do CO2 na atmosfera não pode ser o homem (http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/). E essa não é notícia […]
20
[…] who realise that this greatly weakens the warmist narrative. For example, Jo Nova had a post called The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed [2], where she recognised and graphed a general time lag of several hundred years between CO2 and […]
20
[…] Dit illustreert het misleidende beleid waar het correcte informatie aan de burger betreft. Het kernpunt is dat de AGW-hypothese (Anthropogenic Global Warming; door de mens veroorzaakte catastrofale opwarming) in het politieke beleid onterecht als een bewezen feit wordt aangenomen en dat daarom naar deze conclusie (selectief) toe wordt ‘geredeneerd’ al dan niet door de media. Alles wordt aangegrepen om de illusie van een door mensen veroorzaakte catastrofale opwarming in de geesten te rammeien, gelijk een hersenspoeling, met als doel het verdienmodel van het Eco Industrieel Complex overeind te houden. Kapitalisme in de visie van links, maar hier lijkt dan toch een Faustachtig pact met de duivel te zijn gesloten. Alle wetenschapsbeoefening is door dit pact zoekgeraakt en heeft plaatsgemaakt voor negeren van feiten. Immers, de klimaatmodellen van het IPCC hebben de opwarming schromelijk overschat. Het causale verband tussen CO2-verandering als veroorzaker van temperatuurverandering is ver te zoeken. Eerder geldt het tegendeel. Zie hier. […]
[Google Translate from the Dutch, gives:
This illustrates the misleading policy that concerns the right information to the citizen. The key point is that the AGW hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warming, Human-induced catastrophic warming) in the political policy is unfair as a proven fact is assumed and that, therefore, this conclusion (selectively) is “reasoned” or not by the media. Everything is being used to frame the illusion of a human-induced catastrophic global warming, like brainwashing, with the aim of keeping the Eco Industrial Complex’s earnings model up. Capitalism in the vision of the left, but here seems to be a Faustish pact with the devil. All the practice of science has been sought by this pact and has led to ignoring facts. After all, the climate models of the IPCC have overestimated the warming up. The causal link between CO2 change as a cause of temperature change is far to be sought. Rather, the opposite is true. See here. {link lost in translation}] [Fly]
[I’m also dubious about the Google translation. I might get the translation checked but that’s not possible right now.] AZ
20
[…] als veroorzaker van temperatuurverandering is ver te zoeken. Eerder geldt het tegendeel. Zie hier.Nu deed het ECN er nog een schepje bovenop door te verklaren:In toenemende mate zal de opwekking […]
20
[…] ignored the empirical evidence. They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day. Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag […]
20
Historically, yes, rise in CO2 concentration follows rise in global temperature. However, the relation goes both ways. It is scientifically proven that the exponential rise in CO2 concentration, due to human activity since the industrial revolution of the 18th century, causes rising of global temperature. (The enhanced steam motor was invented by James Watt in 1769.)
See for example this article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
“We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming. […] On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.”
10
An interesting paper, thanks Alix.
It does not show what it claims though.
1. Firstly, it uses HadCRUT — see John McLeans work on how this dataset is missing huge amounts of data before 1950, has inexplicable adjustments, is unchecked for basic errors like boats being on land, and thermometers being F not C.
2. Thanks to the false ratchet-up of site move adjustments, plus UHI, if there is a correlation between temperatures rising and CO2 output it is hardly a surprise. More airports, more airconditioners near thermometers is the obvious cause of “global warming”.
3. The paper itself says that there is no correlation between CO2 and temps in the icecores. ie no evidence at all of CO2 feedbacks — (which are larger than the direct effect of CO2.) That’s quite significant!
“Slower” meaning “lower” when we are talking about an effect that didn’t show in 800,000 years.
And this — anthropogenic forcings is “basic physics” so why does it have “differing effects”?
4. The study obviously doesn’t consider that solar effects (ie. perhaps through solar wind, UV/IR changes, and the solar magnetic field) have a far higher correlation with global temperatures than CO2 does. Hence it found a spurious correlation and confirms it against broken models that are known failures.
30
Proof tree refuting global warming: https://truthsift.com/search_view?topic=Will-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-Heat-the-planet-by-at-least-.5-degrees-C-by-2100.&id=502 . Please add proofs and refutations when you have a rational contribution.
10
[…] [3] Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/ http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ […]
10
The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
http://www.drtimball.com
21
I think the above graph shows that we are overdue for the next Ice Age! Would that be correct?
20
Correct — Plus or minus 2,000 years or so. Who knows?
20
Robert, we ARE in an Ice Age, Have been for around 2.6 million years, what you are looking for is a new GLACIATION phase, which is already ongoing for the last few thousand years.
20
In response to the “temp leads not lags”, skepticalscience says:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
If most of the warming is from CO2 release feedback amplification how come warming have stopped in the past?
20
Indeed. We’ve looked to find signs of any amplification, and if it exists, it’s not detectable. Obviously not a strong effect. For 15,000 years during the last interglacial CO2 stayed at its peak while temps fell about 10 degrees at vostok.
30
What’s the climate science people’s view on it? How do they answer it?
Ps for the record I’m agnostic on the subject of climate. I’m just trying to understand the debate a bit better.
40
In every case in the Vostok graphs, peak CO2 has ALWAYS be associated with a drop in temperature.
30
That’s the part I’m struggling to understand?
If the preceding net rise was primarily CO2 driven (after an initial kick off by orbit cycle), then how come temperatures dive when CO2 are so high? If it’s CO2 fuelling the fire I can’t understand how the fire suddenly goes out.
40
CO2 has nothing to do with world temperature.
And it doesn’t amplify water.
That story was made up in haste when the CO2 scam was exposed.
KK
10
“If it’s CO2 fuelling the fire I can’t understand how the fire suddenly goes out.”
Bad analogy..
CO2 is used in fire extinguishers. 😉
CO2 can never “fuel” a fire.
As far as I know, it is chemically impossible.
20
This graph might confuse you even more.
During the Holocene, the temperature fell, while CO2 levels grew.
10
Anyway to send you a PFD?
Analysis of Extract of a Graph of Ice Core data presented by NOAA
proves that neither CO2 nor temperature force the other to rise.
BP
10
Analysis of ice core data shows that over the last half million years a rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2 by 800 years or so.
10
After the major Texas drought of 2011, U of Texas decided to explore what causes droughts and found that CO2 had little if anything to do with it.
“California droughts caused mainly by changes in wind, not moisture”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160705102640.htm
The conclusion accusing wind changes is important given recent observations.
“The stilling: global wind speeds slowing since 1960”
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-stilling-global.html
For some reason, an obvious factor is being ignored.
“Wind Power Capacity Worldwide Reaches 597 GW, 50,1 GW added in 2018”
https://wwindea.org/blog/2019/02/25/wind-power-capacity-worldwide-reaches-600-gw-539-gw-added-in-2018/
Looking at the math, 600 GW times 25% charge factor divided by 45% efficiency times the number of seconds per year and divided by the total mass of earth’s atmosphere comes out to a little over 2 Joules per kilogram per year for the entire atmosphere up to space. An average surface wind speed of 6.8 meters per second has a kinetic energy of 1/2 x 6.8^2 = 23.12 J/kg. While I can’t verify thew figure, information from the Wikipedia “Wind Power” entry converts to about 150 J/kg of kinetic energy for the entire atmosphere with 130 J/kg in the northern hemisphere. (mass of the atmosphere / surface area is a little over 10,000 kg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_power&oldid=856111887#/media/File:Global_Annual_50m_Average_Wind_Speed.png
“Wind is the movement of air across the surface of the Earth, affected by areas of high pressure and of low pressure. The global wind kinetic energy averaged approximately 1.50 MJ/m2 over the period from 1979 to 2010, 1.31 MJ/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere with 1.70 MJ/m2 in the Southern Hemisphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
After looking at CO2 and the claims that it causes feedback surface warming while completely ignoring the reduction of solar IR due to increases CO2, then yes, CO2 isn’t our problem. It’s plant food. We have a problem with the wind.
20
Jo (and others),
In your view how much of the temperature rise is due to CO2 rise?
Climate changes sites like skeptical science suggest the overwhelming bulk of the temperature rise (aside from primary trigger) is due to CO2, e.g. they use phrases such as “about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase”.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
You would expect that sort of interpretation from people who believe CO2 is THE driver.
How much in reality do you think? 1%? 10%? 50%?
20
“How much in reality do you think?”
Absolutely None.
20
It would have some impact wouldn’t it?
10
No.
10
That seems a bit extreme. Most skeptics seem to agree CO2 has some impact on temperature. Just not nearly as much as predicted by CAGW believers.
10
“Most skeptics seem to agree CO2 has some impact on temperature”
Show me the measured proof. !
There is no observed warming from atmospheric CO2 anywhere.
The atmosphere is proven to be in vertical thermal equilibrium, which means the over-riding control is from the gravity thermal induced energy gradient
That means that even if there was any of this mythical CO2 warming, it would be immediately countered by that gradient, so, to all intents and purposes, it does not exist.
30
I thought that No was more succinct.
30
I’ve heard Jo and others say greenhouse effect from CO2 gives up to about 1 degree warming per doubling, and hence the impact rapidly decays logarithmically, and isn’t what the alarmists say.
You’re saying CO2 has no greenhouse effect at all? Nothing in any circumstances?
21
Its never been observed or measured anywhere.
It only exists in models.
Theory “says” it should, if you only look at radiative theory
I am saying that even if it did exist, the atmosphere is “controlled” by far greater forces.
The fact that the planet’s atmosphere has now been proven to be in vertical thermal equilibrium, show that fact.
30
“How much in reality do you think?”
Absolutely None.
10
There appears to have been a doubling of comments here.
Must be the extra 1 ppm in the biosphere.
20
But KK, it bares saying twice.. I’ll repeat it for you.. “absolutely none”
20
Ice Core Graph ( See Link Below) shows :
– CO2 rose over past 10,000 y as in Past Cycles, while Temp stalled 3˚C lower than in past cycles. This demonstrates that CO2 does not force Temp to Rise.
Also:
– As temp didn’t rise, but CO2 did, this demonstrates that temp doesn’t force CO2 to rise.
Something else is causing the cycles.
Scientists are not trying to figure that out.
NOTE: Somebody has added Atmospheric CO2 and Temp Lines beyond the Margin. It takes at least 100y ( Some say longer) for natural processes to compress Ice to be read, therefore the Atmospheric values can not be indexed to Ice Core data.
Also note the added lines are way out of scale, and research shows NOAA pre-samples CO2 which invalidates that data.
Nobody takes responsibility for the lines outside of the Margin.
I expect it’s NOAA.
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
10
Not sure what you mean Bill.
10
Most recent 10,000 year portion of the 420ka Ice Core graph shows:
– Co2 doesn’t force temp to rise
and
– Temperature doesn’t force CO2 to rise.
therefore,,,, Something else causes Climate Change.
Someone unknown, is adding lines of atmoshperic Co2 and Temp beyond the Margin of the 420ka Ice Core Graphs.
The Scale for those lines are greatly distorted (100y same as 10,000y, and research shows that NOAA pre-samples atmospheric CO2 data. That makes recent atmospheric Co2 readings suspect.
10
KK,
The Graphs I see are not large enough to see 800 yrs accurately.
In any event, I think the most recent 10,000 yrs is determinate.
BP
( I would really like to see the 420ka graph plotted on a 10′ sheet.)
10
John,
I’m not a scientist, but I can read a graph, and it’s clear that over the past 10,000y, co2 rose as it did in the past high cycles and temperature has remained 3 degrees C lower than in the 4 past Cycles.
I’m sure if you looked at the Graph, you see that as well.
10
Yes I can see the deviation you are refeerig to. There are other deviations in the graph. It’s not perfect correlation. There is obviously more going on than a straight 1 to 1 relationship between temp and CO2. But that being said there is pretty solid correlation and I’d be very surprised if temp isn’t forcing the CO2 rise.
41
Yes, on better scales it’s more obvious; temperature rises and about 800 years later CO2 follows.
20
AndyG55
I don’t know what chemical theories the Scientists have concocted to demonstrate CO2 has forced Temperature rise, I just see that the Ice Core Graph presented shows that Co2 has not forced Temp to rise over the past 10,000 yrs.,, nor visa versa.
It appears that some other mechanism is causing Climate Cycles.
Whereas the Cycles are getting longer,, 85,000 to 130,000y, It would seem to be reasonable to conclude that Malankovitch( SP?) (planetary cycles) are not the driving force either.
It also appears we are at the end of a Cycle, and maybe overdue for cooling.
10
AndyG55
I have seen pictorial proof of NOAA artificially warming temp Gauges.
( Watts up With that. Is US temp Record reliable.)
I also see reports that upper atmosphere has not warmed, but that is a short term record.
IMO, the Ice Cores record, if correct, is a 420,000 y. factual record that is dispositive.
BP
10
John
I’m saying the Ice Core Graph shows :
1) Temp was 3 Degrees C higher in 4 past cycle highs, than it has been over the most recent 10,000 y.
2) Over the past 10,000 yrs., Co2 Rose to approximately the same high level as it did in the past 4 cycle highs.
3) Temp has been stalled +/- 3 degrees C lower than the high temp levels of the past 4 cycle highs.
ERGO .. the Ice Core data shows that over the past 10,000 yrs., CO2 did not cause Temp to rise.
AND
as temp did not rise, and CO2 did, Temp didn’t force CO2 to rise.
Look at the Graph.
11
as temp did not rise, and CO2 did, Temp didn’t force CO2 to rise.
In that instance (and others) it does look like other factors at work. But why would you write off the otherwise tight (lagging) correlation between temp and CO2?
10
John,
Co2 and Temp BOTH rose and fell over the past 4 Climate Cycles in close trends.
The Graphs are of such small scale that I can’t say for sure, but it appears that temp mostly lead CO2.
Notwithstanding; the Trend Lines of the Past 10,000y clearly show CO2 rising BUT Temp was stalled at +/- 3 degrees C lower than past high Temps.
Moreover, whereas Temp hasn’t risen as in the past cycles, clearly temp. didn’t force CO2 to rise.
Download the Graph and draw your own lines to analyze the data.
10
John,
Observing that Temp stalled for most recent 10,000 yrs as CO2 rose as it did in 4 past cycles, doesn’t seem to demonstrate a close cause and effect.
10
In my opinion the graphs are very consistent with causal relationship between temperature and CO2. Yes there are other factors affecting CO2 too, hence non perfect correlation, but that doesn’t invalidate the otherwise strong correlation.
Maybe you are right and there’s a hidden process driving both, but from Occam razor I see no point assuming that without evidence of it. It’s simpler to assume temp is causing CO2 to release.
20
In my opinion, the graphs show that CO2 has no effect on temperature at all, and CO2 is just a follower.
The fact is, that there is absolutely no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
You got one thing right, you should never assume something without evidence.
20
Andy G55
If Black is CO2, it’s rising over past 8,000Yrs
If Blue Blocks are Temp., temps is falling over past 12,000 yrs.
That’s an inverse relationship.
The 420 ka Graph more clearly shows Co2 and Temp Trends.
Have you looked at that?
BP
11
Yes, the Vostok graphs show that even when CO2 is at its highest, it does not make temperatures rise or cannot even maintain the temperature.
In fact the highest CO2 levels coincide with falling temperatures.
20
??
10
You are deliberately ignoring the factors involved at this part of the cycles.
Junk posts to mess the blog around.
10
KK says, “…temperature rises and about 800 years later CO2 follows.”
I ask,,, Whereas temperature has been stalled for 10,000 yrs, why did CO2 rise?
BP
11
Whereas temperature has been stalled for 10,000 yrs, why did CO2 rise?
Because temperature isn’t the only thing that affects CO2 levels.
10
Has CO2 risen or fallen in the last 8,000 years?
Ice core values only.
Please don’t mix ice core with later hardcore values.
They aren’t comparable.
KK
10
KK,
Ice Core researches say it takes 100y for Ice Cores to naturally Compress, in order to be consonantly readable.
That seems reasonable, and maybe longer time produces more accurate results..
However, someone is adding Atmospheric lines to the Ice Core Graphs, and distorting the Scale. Could that be NOAA, which is already well known to have faked up the temperature record. ( See Watts Up)
BP
20
And even the recent rise is questionable.
Callendar was highly selective of the data used for “pre-industrial CO2 level“
20
John,
Comment “… It’s simpler to assume temp is causing CO2 to release.”
See BP comment to KK January 30, 2020 at 12:53 am
BP
11
Circular; some might even say annular.
10
AndyG55 Comment..
“… the atmosphere is “controlled” by far greater forces.”
Agreed.. and if we are at the end of a climate cycle.. why aren’t scientists concerned and trying to find out what the “forces” are?
BP
10
John.
Question: Whereas temperature has been stalled for 10,000 yrs, why did CO2 rise?
Response: Because temperature isn’t the only thing that affects CO2 levels.
Question: What? … and why are 97% of scientists ignoring everything but CO2 driving AGW?
BP
10
To All::::
A NOAA official presented an Ice Core Graphic backward at a University of North Carolina, Institute of Marine Sciences program, saying it was proof of Co2 forcing Temp to rise, and not one of the scientists objected.
( UNC-IMS scientists are managing National Flood Mapping Computer modeling programs.)
If they can’t tell that a graph is being presented to them backward, Lord help us.
BP
20
“The science says” that CO2 drives temperature, so why would you expect them to protest?
10
John;
Honesty????
BP
30
You misunderstood my comment.
Their position is that the science says CO2 is the primary driver. So when graphs come up which are said to show just that, what else would you expect them to do but silently agree?
10
I thought at least one of them would be honest..
Evidently not. 🙁
BP
20
““The science says” that CO2 drives temperature,”
Which is totally wrong.
Warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured on this planet.
It exists only in models.
30
Guys, greater minds than ours have studdied the arse out of the ice core data using very thourough and complex statistical techniques ..Ref Salby etc..
The conclusion is that there is NO CAUSAL Correlation between CO2 levels and Temperature.
Further, there is much doubt as to the accuracy and even the validity of the “scientific” analysis of raw ice core data to extract the CO2 and Temperature figures that most take for granted as accurate.
Certainly there is little correlation with other methods of estimating CO2 levels (Stigmata analysis, geological studies , etc)
21
Chad,
It seems to me that the Ice Core data effectively demonstrates that :
– there have been Climate Cycles over the eons,
– Temp and Sea Level has risen and fallen many times,
– Man had nothing to do with it.
– Climate cycles are slowing down
and
– We appear to be at end of a cycle.
I don’t understand why 97% of Scientists are satisfied and fixated on CO2Temp instead of seeking to understand Real World climate.
BP
20
I’m surprised you don’t get that they have to agree if they want grant money. If you are working in scientific study area, if you’re project doesn’t mention its significant effect on addressing climate change, it won’t get funded.
It’s the real “Positive Climate Feedback” 😉
10
What about the correlation between temp and CO2?
10
John’s Question,, ” What about the correlation between temp and CO2?”
Answer; I don’t see any..
We have had Climate Cycles for eons, and we appear to be at the End of a Cycle.
I would think scientists would want to find out what cause the cycles, but they don’t.
BP
10
You don’t see any correlation between temp and CO2? Really?
The graph shows a lot of correlation.
10
Based on observation of, admittedly, a small scale graph, CO2 and Temp rose and fell in past in similar times, but not in direct sync. Over past 10 ka Co2 rose as in past, but temp stalled. Ergo no correlation.
But,,, what caused CO2 to rise, and why did Temp stall?
Currently, magnetic North Pole is moving relatively rapidly, and NASA says sun spot activity is lowest in centuries. Is there a correlation to something?
Lots of questions, but 97% of scientists are NOT skeptical? Wow!
10
A confused set of posts.
10
A “deliberately” confused set of posts.
10
“The graph shows a lot of correlation”
Like this one does. 😉
20
A good graph.
20
I am interested in looking at the relationships between: temperature vs water vapour, temperature vs methane, temperature versus earth’s magnetic field, temperature versus interstellar cosmic rays, temperature versus solar cosmic rays, temperature versus solar wind, temperature versus sun’s magnetic field, temperature versus earth’s orbital eccentricity – to name a few.
40
The failure to eliminate those factors , and possibly others , precludes proving that CO2 (or anything else ) did it , whatever it is that is claimed to be anthropogenic.
AGW et al remains purely conjectural.
20
Temperature versus temperature of the mantle; Are we heading for a period of intense super volcanic activity. Has anyone measured the change in the average temperature of the mantle over the past 100 years?(sic)
30
Nando.
That would be good research.
I would like to see the results.
Look at previous comment to John.
But again… 97% of scientists are not skeptical.
BP
21
Can’t.
Really.
Accept that.
Proposition.
10
What specifically?
10
“But again… 97% of scientists are not skeptical.”
What’s the point of this?
20
That means that the ” 97% ” referred to cannot possibly be called scientists.
30
🙂
20
What’s everyone’s take on the Shakun study which says 93% warming caused by the CO2?
https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
10
John,
Re Shakun:
1) If orbital factors provide the triggers to cycles, why are the Cycles slowing from 85 ka to 130 ka?
2) Shakun is a study of relatively short term data. If Glacial Melt caused by Warming results in N&S oceanic mixing forcing CO2 rise,
a) why did CO2 rise over past 10ka with stalled warming,
and
b) why did Co2 and Temp rise concurrently is previous cycles?
I appreciate the Shakun effort, but IMO the result is limited by unavailability of long term collaborating data.
( Is this a reasonable opinion?)
BP
11
Mr. Price,
Can’t. Really. Accept that. Proposition.
10
KK
What specifically have said I said that characterizes Shakun findings?
BP
10
You mean like this….
10
If you read it carefully, you will see that the assumed that CO2 caused warming, then used that assumption to say the CO2 caused warming.
Not science.! smoke and mirrors.
31
Rubbish.
Infill.
10
OT, but NSIDC 30/1/2020 has the Arctic sea ice extent above every year of the last 16 years except 2008 and 2009
20
Callendar is Atmospheric, not Ice Core Data.
NOAA is Pre-sampeling Atmospheric CO2 at Mona Loa (a Volcano) and Cape Grim.
That allows manipulation of the data.
Based on well documented NOAA manipulation of Temperature, that’s likely.
BP
20
KK
One would think that as Ice Core Data disproves CO2 Forcing AGW, and shows probability we are at end of a Climate Cycle, scientists would try to figure out what did, and is happening, but no, 97% are sold on CO2 AGW theory.
20
O.K.
Gotcha. Agree.
10
AndyG55 Comment:
“… the highest CO2 levels coincide with falling temperatures.”
BP Response: I would like to see Ice Core plotted on a 10′ long sheet, to be able to carefully analyze the Temp and Co2 lines.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that the recent 10 ka is determinate.
As commented to KK,, whereas Ice Core Data shows probability we are at end of a Climate Cycle, scientists should try to figure out what did, and is happening, but it doesn’t appear they have any interest in that.
BP
BP
11
Bill,
If you look at the various graphs supplied by Jo It can be seen that picking anything out of them is difficult.
At the lower temperature decision points it’s more clearly seen that temperature increases and this is later followed by the rise in CO2 detected in the ice cores.
Scientifically logical.
At the upper points this relationship is harder to see.
The differences are no doubt a factor of initial conditions going into each phase: for example, during warm periods there are warm oceans, lots of animal and plant life and the sun is beginning to wane.
The turnaround from the cold period involves a dormant earth, under a couple of kilometers of ice. It will taken a long time to melt the ice, expose rotting vegetation and push out CO2.
The sun drives it in both cases, not CO2 as The Algorithm would have us believe.
KK
10
KK:
So :
– if earth is mostly covered with ice, vegetation is stunted, and Co2 is encapsulated, what starts the Warming?
or
– if the earth is warm, CO2 is high, and ice mass and reflectivity is reduced, what started the glaciations?
Methinks there is a lot more to it than is being proposed.
BP
21
It’s a big thing: when you look into it.
10
Hi Bill,
One of the things that has made it difficult to figure out stuff is comments like the following;
” Nonetheless, it seems to me that the recent 10 ka is determinate.”
The meaning intended is unclear. What’s meant by that?
KK
10
KK :
The facts demonstrated by the 10 ka Ice Core record show,
– CO2 rose and Temps didn’t, ergo rise of CO2 didn’t force temp to rise.
and
– Temp didn’t rise but CO2 did, ergo Temps don’t force CO2 rise.
So, based on the Ice Core record, it’s clear that something else drives Climate Cycles, not CO2 or Temperature.
CO2 and temps cycles are independent results of something.
IMO we should be trying to figure out:
– what caused past cycles? and
– are we at the end of a cycle?
BP
22
More circular rubbish.
Welcome back Peter FitzRoy.
It’s nice to have another “contributor” return to take up the load.
KK
10
It’s Feta PhitsRoy.!!!
10
KK,
I don’t think you thought about it carefully.
If neither caused the other,,,
then there must be a third cause.
( NOTE: I didn’t create the ICE CORE Graph,
but ( if factual) it demonstrates what it demonstrates,
whether it supports your theory or not.
BP
10
Bill, I was flicking through your comment and bumped the red. Ignore it.
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm – maybe the sharp rise in CO2 levels we’re seeing are partly the effects of the CO2 spike following the Medieval Hot Flash (i.e.,”Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math certainly fits
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm – maybe the sharp rise in CO2 levels we’re seeing are partly the effects of the CO2 spike following the Medieval Hot Flash (i.e.,”Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math certainly fits
[this feller made this comment about 8 times each ended up in spam. I see he’s posted here a few times before but this is also a pretty old thread. So I’m not sure what to do with the comment. ]ED
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm — maybe the sharp increase in CO2 levels we’re seeing is partly the effect of the CO2 spike that followed the Medieval Hot Flash (“Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math is certainly right.
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm — maybe the sharp increase in CO2 levels we’re seeing is partly the effect of the CO2 spike that followed the Medieval Hot Flash (“Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math is certainly right.
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm — maybe the sharp increase in CO2 levels we’re seeing is partly the effect of the CO2 spike that followed the Medieval Hot Flash (“Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math is certainly right.
10
A lag of 800 years? Hmmm — maybe the sharp increase in CO2 levels we’re seeing is partly the effect of the CO2 spike that followed the Medieval Hot Flash (“Warm Period”) — which lasted until 1250. The math is certainly right.
10
Multiple posts are caused by the fact that the posting does not appear immediately…or even within a reasonable time frame, prompting several follow-up efforts to get the thought recorded.
20
Otto,
Being the first time you have posted, you are automatically held in moderation until one of the moderators can get to it.
You will find that after a few posts, the “slow to appear” problem will disappear.
Cheers
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
Say it again?
10
What’s your excuse?
10
Stupidity.
10
I did some research on Current CO2 graphs , and find :
– NOAA resamples the samples ,, which can distort the data
( As they did the TEMP record / Watts)
– Percentage of Man Made CO2 is NOT based on actual sampling.
– Recent CO2 trends Total or Man Made, are statistically impossible to validate.
Is there anyway to post a PDF on this site?
BP
10
I did some research on Current CO2 graphs , and find :
– NOAA pre-samples the samples ,, which can distort the data
( As they did the TEMP record / Watts)
– Percentage of Man Made CO2 is NOT based on actual sampling.
– Recent CO2 trends Total or Man Made, are statistically impossible to validate.
Is there anyway to post a PDF on this site?
BP
10
[…] The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed JoNova – Last Update: Oct 18 2020 https://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ […]
10
[…] source: Barnola et al (2003) credit Jo Nova for […]
10
[…] (hřích #2); absolutně je nezajímá, že i kdyby zde byla kauzalita, může být opačná (teplota může způsobovat koncentraci CO2). Ne; prý že „data říkají, že CO2 může za změnu teploty“, a to ještě ke […]
10
[…] Fonte : Joanne Nova […]
10
Joanne, I have been aware of the 800 year lag for about 20 years. Can you point me to a site where that 800 year lag was calculated from the various Vostok data sources. I am looking to see the time series analysis that was done and the uncertainty around the 800 years lag (does it change over time).
Thanks…
Geoff
20
Geoff, there are five papers listed in that post. I suggest you read their methods. There are some large variations between papers. The 800 comes from Caillon et al 2003. (Note that I may not check back here for your reply, sorry! It’s not an active thread. )
30
[…] Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article, “The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed.” when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern: […]
10
[…] Jo Nova, bloggeuse très connue sur le sujet du réchauffement climatique confirme que c’est bien la hausse de température qui précède la hausse du CO2 : voir « Climate Change The facts 2020 » pages 82-83. Cette information est démontrée scientifiquement par Jean François Auzolle ingénieur de l’Ecole Centrale de Paris (dans une interview du 27/01/2020 à TVL au chrono 28:05) « Réchauffement climatique : mythe et réalité » (1ère partie) – Politique & Eco n°247 – TVL. C’est bien la température qui commande scientifiquement la teneure en CO2 dans l’atmosphère et pas l’inverse! Voir ci-dessous le diagramme montrant le cycle naturel du CO2 : […]
20
Hello Jo, first time on the post. These hundreds of thousand time warps are way off line.The Roman Martyrology places Christ’s birth on 25th December 5199 yrs Anno Mundi; 2957 years after the flood. Anthropologists have collected at least 59 flood legends from aboriginal communities across the globe including 37 from the South Sea islands and Australia. All accounts agree: 1. There was a worldwide flood that destroyed humans and animals.2. A vessel of safety was provided and :3. only a small number of people survived. Also the American historian Dr. Aaron Smith collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. There are approximately 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. Prior to the flood there was a firmament of water vapour that was a very effective shield for cosmic rays, thus greatly reducing the production of Carbon 14 , making the pre-flood world a healthier place and further explaining post-flood radiocarbon dates. It is also conjectured by scientists that the earth’s magnetic field was at least ten times greater before the flood. Carbon dating is therefore only useful post-flood and should be taken into consideration with Carbon Dioxide and so called climate change.
00
Evidence for firmament of water vapor pre flood?
00
[…] them the Vostok Ice Cores too. Send them Brazilian sea levels, and tell them the the Sahara was lush green and wet, and […]
00
[…] Vostok Ice Cores […]
00