Arguments about climate change

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

That was interesting youngdan. In particular this:

Quote :

But once the raw emotion and — 59% of Democrats blame global warming on man vs. only 21% of Republicans — there's nothing for the U.S. to lead on.

I'm intrigued by the fact that the scientific evidence, one way or the other, is the same for everyone, but political outlook is so important to people's view on this.

cactus flower wrote:

None of these damn graphs is over a long enough time period, apart from perhaps the last one.

some more graphs over thousands of years.

“New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise”
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml



studies of Antarctic ice core data which show a clear correlation between CO2 concentrations and global average temperature:







also
graph of global temperatures along with CO2 concentrations over the past 1000 years.




Basically the rate of increase in carbon dioxide levels from 270 ppm to 380 ppm in the last hundred years is unprecedented.

The rise in temperature is much faster than any rise going back to 650,000 years ago and as assessed by antarctic ice core data.

The realclimate article below is interesting too wrt foolish extrapolation of short term trends (or weather vs climate).
.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

"John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to
validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change
over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that last
year's numbers imply that 'Global Warming has stopped' or that it is
'taking a break' (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our
readers will realise, these comparisons are flawed since they basically
compare long term climate change to short term weather variability.

This becomes immediately clear when looking at the following graph:......"

One of the points regularly not grasped by those convinced that "it's all natural innit?" is that the rate of change is unprecedented. Arguments that we're (as yet) no warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period and that it's therefore natural miss out entirely the difference between the gentle rise to the MWP hump and the sharp rise to our current position - the difference between a normal breath and a sudden gasp.

As to the solar argument...the sun's output is really rather easy to study, so its effect is easily measurable.

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

I'd imagine one of the main reasons for this high level of ignorance, is the increasing concentration of ownership of the US media. This exacerbates the existing 'filters' which filter out such unfavourable information*. There's certain things which are just not said too often - if at all.

Also, many mainstream outlets are letting go their science reporters. Such as CNN.

CNN is spun right round, baby, right round


As regards Investor's Business Daily, isn't it fair to say they're a little loopy when it comes to science matters that conflict with gungho capitalist growth?

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2008/10/14/americas-strangest-newspaper?page=full

Quote :

"Politically, IBD's opinion page veers to the outer reaches of the right, making even the Journal's trademark business-friendly editorial line seem moderate. IBD flatly denies that climate change is real and is caused by human activity. "They can speculate that's the case. But they can't prove it," one editorial trilled on July 28. Another editorial suggested global warming is a good thing. "Carbon dioxide is in fact not a pollutant. Rather, it is the basis of all plant, and therefore all animal, life on Earth." The page refers to Barack Obama as a "socialist" and claims that he thinks America is a "feudal society.""

Investor's Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php


*
[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&ei=Mop3SZKkIIrojgKp5vC7BQ&q=manufacturing+consent+chomsky&hl=en]manufacturing consent[/url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_-_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

Thanks Pax, they're good. In this one, the temperature rise appears to have taken before the rise in CO2. I am reading this wrongly?

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks Pax, they're good. In this one, the temperature rise appears to have taken before the rise in CO2. I am reading this wrongly?

Yeah that's the 800 or so year lag. See below

What does the lag of CO₂ behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Quote :

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere
and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify
it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO₂
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are
pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that
happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO₂ doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows
is that CO₂ did not cause the first 800 years
of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming
could in fact have been caused by CO₂, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.


The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO₂ could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

The lag between temperature and CO₂. (Gore’s got it right.)

Quote :

....
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO₂
concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial
climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community.
Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this
finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the
cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records,
well before the data showed that CO₂ might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

changes in the CO₂ and CH₄ content
have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate
changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal
radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the
well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the
positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of
sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations
(higher temperatures lead to more CO₂ leads to warmer
temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature
somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these
different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag
temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time
period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO₂ might well
be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the
timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength
of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that
transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.....

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

This is how lame Ibis has become. We are talking about the Rasmussen Poll that was in every newspaper not just the one of many I read

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

This is how lame Ibis has become. We are talking about the Rasmussen Poll that was in every newspaper not just the one of many I read

So? If we went by polls evolution would be false, and if we went by US polls, the earth is only 6,000 years old. Come old, old fella, where's your science?

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

This is how lame Ibis has become. We are talking about the Rasmussen Poll that was in every newspaper not just the one of many I read

So? If we went by polls evolution would be false, and if we went by US polls, the earth is only 6,000 years old. Come old, old fella, where's your science?

Do you even read the post before you start off like a parrot.

I will retype it slowly for you .

I said "The Rasmussein polls show that the majority have swung decisively against the panic mongers like Ibis."

I then link to the poll. What part do you not understand.

Pax wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

I'd imagine one of the main reasons for this high level of ignorance, is the increasing concentration of ownership of the US media. This exacerbates the existing 'filters' which filter out such unfavourable information*. There's certain things which are just not said too often - if at all.

Also, many mainstream outlets are letting go their science reporters. Such as CNN.

CNN is spun right round, baby, right round


As regards Investor's Business Daily, isn't it fair to say they're a little loopy when it comes to science matters that conflict with gungho capitalist growth?

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2008/10/14/americas-strangest-newspaper?page=full

Quote :

"Politically, IBD's opinion page veers to the outer reaches of the right, making even the Journal's trademark business-friendly editorial line seem moderate. IBD flatly denies that climate change is real and is caused by human activity. "They can speculate that's the case. But they can't prove it," one editorial trilled on July 28. Another editorial suggested global warming is a good thing. "Carbon dioxide is in fact not a pollutant. Rather, it is the basis of all plant, and therefore all animal, life on Earth." The page refers to Barack Obama as a "socialist" and claims that he thinks America is a "feudal society.""

Investor's Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/investors_business_daily_has_a.php


*
[url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&ei=Mop3SZKkIIrojgKp5vC7BQ&q=manufacturing+consent+chomsky&hl=en]manufacturing consent[/url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_-_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media[/quote[/url]]

This is how lame Pax has become. He says that CO2 spikes in concert with temperture rises over thousands of years. So who was driving SUVs a million years ago. What a load of bollox

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

This is how lame Ibis has become. We are talking about the Rasmussen Poll that was in every newspaper not just the one of many I read

So? If we went by polls evolution would be false, and if we went by US polls, the earth is only 6,000 years old. Come old, old fella, where's your science?

Do you even read the post before you start off like a parrot.

I will retype it slowly for you .

I said "The Rasmussein polls show that the majority have swung decisively against the panic mongers like Ibis."

I then link to the poll. What part do you not understand.

The. bit. where. that's. relevant. to. the. science.

Quote :

This is how lame Pax has become. He says that CO2 spikes in concert with temperture rises over thousands of years. So who was driving SUVs a million years ago. What a load of bollox

If you leave your car outside, it will get hotter and colder. That's what we call 'natural variation', and it's relatively predictable. The sun warms your car, see?

If you go outside at night, and apply a blowtorch to your car, it will also get hotter. That does not mean that the sun has come up, though.

In much the same way there are reasons why the climate and CO2 vary naturally - well-studied, which is the point of things like the ice cores - and then there are times when the variation is not natural. Merely because a thing can happen naturally does not mean that when it happens it is always natural. When you have measured and eliminated the effects of natural causes, and still haven't explained the observed facts, you need to consider other, unnatural, causes.

What you need to do to be convincing here, youngdan, is to provide some alternative science, that shows the currently observed climate change as being explained entirely by natural causes. What no climate change denier does is provide such science - because it doesn't exist. Instead what is done is to find an error in one study out of a hundred, and trumpet that as being 'disproof'. Thats exactly the same methodology as used by the asbestos industry, the tobacco industry, the creationists, and anyone else whose worldview or livelihood is threatened by inconvenient truths. In turn, that's sold to those who think scepticism is believing anything but the consensus. FUD and fools - they go together.

Ibis - Pax - on the top graph, is 0 the present day? and is the vertical red line above it representative of a measured rise in C02?
There is a distinct pattern in the first graph by which one would expect a temperature peak about now. Is that to do with oscillation of the earth or whatever?

Zoom in to the graph below:

The red line is measured temperatures and others are from ice core samples and so on?



Zoom in again to the time within living memory and good records



It seems from these graphs that there are regular periodic sharp rises of temperature followed by a CO2 rise (with a lesser amount of the rise led by C02)
It also looks as if one of those peaks is due. There is an evident strong historic association between CO2 and temperature rises, but as youngdan says, this pre-dates the SUV.

What is the evidence that the currect temperature / C02 peak is caused by human associated carbon emissions?

Anyone got a graph going back a few million years?

Quote :

It seems from these graphs that there are regular periodic sharp rises of temperature followed by a CO2 rise (with a lesser amount of the rise led by C02)
It also looks as if one of those peaks is due. There is an evident strong historic association between CO2 and temperature rises, but as youngdan says, this pre-dates the SUV.

What is the evidence that the currect temperature / C02 peak is caused by human associated carbon emissions?

Anyone got a graph going back a few million years?

Well, here's a complete 4.6 billion year reconstruction:



Last 65 million:



Ocean temperatures over the last 2 million:



And temperatures over the last 1.35 million:



The main driver for the 120,000 year periodicity observable in the glacial records is the Milankovitch cycle, which is a regular set of changes to Earth's orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession (wobble):



Since those are mechanical changes, they are easily observable and predictable.

As I keep pointing out, the problem that requires explanation is not that the climate is changing, but that it is changing at a rate thousands of times faster than any observed previous change.

I'll come back to the main question when I'm awake enough to do more than copy graphs.

So it is established that we are in terms of billions of years neither hot nor cold, and in more recent terms of millions of years, at a warm peak that is high, but not higher than previous peaks.

What you are saying Ibis is that there is a speed of change that is unprecedented. I'll grant you that the rise is very steep, but is it really any steeper than those other sharp periodic peaks, say like the one 240,000 years ago?

And did that sharp peak or spike 240,000 years ago have dramatic impacts on life on earth?

Mammals / humans have beeen around for abut 65 million years, right?

And why did that wobbly-cooling thing start in the Oligecene era?

Cactus; the wobbly cooling thing is pretty recent (1-2Mya I think) and results from the positioning of North America and Eurasia with respect to the Arctic circle. It has been estimated that if Northern Russia were 300 miles further north, we would live in a permanent ice age, while if it were 300 miles further south, the arctic would not be frozen over. Over million year timescales, continents move and their positioning (given that land has different heat gain/loss properties to water, not to mention the wind resistance generated by uplands) have huge effects on climate. Mammals have been with us for 85Mya, humans in their current form, for about 200000-300000 years only. Hominids have been around for maybe 2-3 million years. The split with the chimp and gorilla lineages is estimated at 5-6Mya (DNA evidence).
The planet has been radically warmer in the past, maybe 11 degrees warmer while the last dinos were tottering around. The planet, and life upon it would survive. The issue with climate change is that our food production chains are very much optimised for our current climate.... and this would apply to changes in temp in either direction. Rapid cooling might in fact be worse.

cactus flower wrote:

So it is established that we are in terms of billions of years neither hot nor cold, and in more recent terms of millions of years, at a warm peak that is high, but not higher than previous peaks.

What you are saying Ibis is that there is a speed of change that is unprecedented. I'll grant you that the rise is very steep, but is it really any steeper than those other sharp periodic peaks, say like the one 240,000 years ago?

The peaks look equally sharp - but the scale on one graph is in thousands of years while the other is in decades. That means a similar visual peak is actually hundreds of times more rapid in the latter.

cactus flower wrote:

And did that sharp peak or spike 240,000 years ago have dramatic impacts on life on earth?

It's the end of a major interglacial period:



Mammals / humans have beeen around for abut 65 million years, right?

cactus flower wrote:

And why did that wobbly-cooling thing start in the Oligecene era?

See expat girl's post

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I consider the debate on global warming is over. The majority here realise that it is bunk. The Rasmussein polls show that the majority has swung decisively against the panic-mongers like Ibis.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=317348261304816

People are no longer buying it and now the thermometer is indicating an ice age

When graphs of emissions and thempertures are put up some laugh because the graph assumes there is a relationship between the 2. If this were the case then did emissions cause all the other warm-ups as well. One has nothing to do with the other.

Nobody wants to answer what is changing climate on the other planets. Nobody wants to explain how 95% carbon dioxide on Mars makes no difference but my SUV is changing anything.

Now Obama is going to push this voodoo science. That will be like Cowen lecturing the Irish to cut back. In a matter of weeks Obama will look like a bad joke.

I'm not convinced that this is the best time for you to push the line that the financial industry knows best. Personally, I'll stick with the science, thanks, whatever investor.com believes.

This is how lame Ibis has become. We are talking about the Rasmussen Poll that was in every newspaper not just the one of many I read

So? If we went by polls evolution would be false, and if we went by US polls, the earth is only 6,000 years old. Come old, old fella, where's your science?

Do you even read the post before you start off like a parrot.

I will retype it slowly for you .

I said "The Rasmussein polls show that the majority have swung decisively against the panic mongers like Ibis."

I then link to the poll. What part do you not understand.

The. bit. where. that's. relevant. to. the. science.

You seem to have a problem understanding what I said. My first sentence is

"I consider the debate over" then I reference the poll showing most Americans then it is bunk. Do you understand what a poll is.

The debate clearly isn't over youngdan as we are still discussing it here.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

So it is established that we are in terms of billions of years neither hot nor cold, and in more recent terms of millions of years, at a warm peak that is high, but not higher than previous peaks.

What you are saying Ibis is that there is a speed of change that is unprecedented. I'll grant you that the rise is very steep, but is it really any steeper than those other sharp periodic peaks, say like the one 240,000 years ago?

The peaks look equally sharp - but the scale on one graph is in thousands of years while the other is in decades. That means a similar visual peak is actually hundreds of times more rapid in the latter.

In order to see that I would need to see the two spikes rendered at the same scale.

Quote :

[quote="cactus flower"]And did that sharp peak or spike 240,000 years ago have dramatic impacts on life on earth?

Quote :

It's the end of a major interglacial period:

Not sure what you mean by that. The tip of the spike is the warmest point, after which it cools again.

Quote :

cactus flower wrote:

And why did that wobbly-cooling thing start in the Oligecene era?

See expat girl's post

Yes - fascinating - thanks expatgirl.

Global warmers really are like Jesus freaks. When asked what caused the spike in CO2 thousands of years ago they have no answer and just blather on. That is why people think ye are crazy and close the door.

youngdan wrote:

Global warmers really are like Jesus freaks. When asked what caused the spike in CO2 thousands of years ago they have no answer and just blather on. That is why people think ye are crazy and close the door.

Edit: sorry youngdan, misread your question.

Pax wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks Pax, they're good. In this one, the temperature rise appears to have taken before the rise in CO2. I am reading this wrongly?

Yeah that's the 800 or so year lag. See below

What does the lag of CO₂ behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Quote :

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere
and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify
it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO₂
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are
pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that
happen every 100,000 years or so.
Does this prove that CO₂ doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows
is that CO₂ did not cause the first 800 years
of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming
could in fact have been caused by CO₂, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.


The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO₂ could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

The lag between temperature and CO₂. (Gore’s got it right.)

Quote :

....
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO₂
concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial
climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community.
Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this
finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the
cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records,
well before the data showed that CO₂ might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

changes in the CO₂ and CH₄ content
have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate
changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal
radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the
well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the
positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of
sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations
(higher temperatures lead to more CO₂ leads to warmer
temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature
somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these
different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag
temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time
period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO₂ might well
be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the
timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength
of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that
transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.....

So the "wobble" causes temperature increases that result in increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere ? What are the main explanations for that again? How does temperature increase lead to increased atmospheric C02?