Skip to comments.Ice Core evidence — where is carbon’s “major effect”?
Posted on 09/02/2010 11:47:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The ice cores are often lauded as evidence of the effects of carbon dioxide. Frank Lansner asks a pointed question and goes hunting to find any effects that can be attributed to carbon.
Where is the data that actually shows a strong and important warming effect of CO2? If CO2 has this strong warming effect, would not nature reflect this in data?
He has collected together the data from the last four warm spells (the nice interglacials between all the long ice ages) into one average peak. The common pattern of the rise and fall has already been recorded in many scientific papers. Orbital changes trigger the temperatures to rise first and about 800 years later (thanks to the oceans releasing CO2), carbon dioxide levels begin to climb. At the end of a patch of several thousand warm years, temperatures begin to fall, and thousands of years later the carbon dioxide levels slowly decline. No one is really contesting this order of things any more. What is contested is that those who feel carbon is a major driver estimate that the carbon dioxide unleashed by the warming then causes major amplification or feedback, making things lots warmer than they would have been if there was no change in carbon. Since most skeptics (but not all) agree that there is probably some warming due to extra CO2, the real question is how much.
Lansner points out that counter to the amplification theory, temperatures return most of the way back to their starting level (ice age temperatures) even while CO2 levels are elevated. If the CO2 cant prevent the temperatures falling, its effect is anything but major.
Estimates of climate sensitivity and support for the feedbacks comes from models which depend on water vapor increasing high over the tropics. The radiosondes show that the models are wrong.
Frank graphs the change in temperatures and CO2, and finds a slight positive trend which is predictable (we know oceans release CO2 as they warm, so there would be a correlation). But then he plots the changes in CO2 against changes in the rate of temperature change, and finds no correlation at all (if CO2 was a major forcing, it would force or accelerate temperature change, which would show as the rate of temperature change). The data is limited to 1500 year blocks, so the time-frame is less than ideal, but the best available in the Petit data.
Thanks to Frank for his work
*************************************THIS IS AN EXCERPT********************************
Duh, warming first, then CO2. CO2 is a byproduct of warming oceans. Freeze the oceans, no increase in CO2 in atmosphere. I know I didn’t go to Harvard, but I’m just sayin.
We’re just making it change forms.
If CO2 stays high then why doesn't the temperature stay high?
The article states that CO2 rises after the temperature. The displayed chart shows CO2 rising first, leading the temperature. Can someone explain the discrepancy?
If you examine the far left side of the graph you see a portion where even as the temperature increases the CO2 level ticks down a bit.
If CO2 stays high then why doesn’t the temperature stay high?
Because its a lagging indicator not a leading indicator.
Steve McQueen saved us from the Bloob with a CO2 fire extinguisher(They work great on fires as well, if any fake erf'first propaganda had validity they'd lobby to sequester it in CO2 extinguishers to give out to poor people.)
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
Yet another good article as to what minimum if any effects CO2 could play in any significant warming of layers within the atmosphere significant enough to supposedly cause the earth’s land masses and oceans to rise in temperature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.