Temperature and CO2 Records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
-----------------------
been proven to follow temperature change in data collected from research in every part of the planet except the fatally flawed computer climate models that AGW fundamentalists worship. It's no wonder that the AGW fundies are really freaking out making ever more wild catastrophic prophecies caused by global warming such as more hookers on the street corners because CO2 is still rising but not the global average temps. What will they claim next? That global warming is going to cause a butter shortage? Oh...wait..
In the past, we could clearly see a lag in CO2 vs temperature. This means that we can conclude in the past that changing temperatures probably resulted in changing CO2. That is all. We cannot claim the reverse by looking at ice core proxies. Alarmists like to pretend that our CO2 concentrations now are well outside the norm because they focus only on ice core proxies which cannot be calibrated to modern times. They also try to suggest that CO2 is a driver of climate change even when there is no evidence for that in the past. I don't know if they are trying to fool themselves or others. There is only one answer for these people and that answer must include CO2 being bad because that is what they are supposed to believe.
It's funny to watch people like "antarcticice" add to the question by stating "CO2 contributes to the warming", yet his answer falls short when he can't identify 'how much'. It has been so very clear to a real skeptic of AGW that the additional warming of each ppm (120ppm total) is too miniscule to be documented while temperatures are clearly driven by 'many' other sources in one direction or the other and is clearly identifiable. The continued focus on CO2 as a driving force is the same as the Government telling us that they create jobs that add to an expanding economy.
Governments can now control CO2 levels and therefore control temperatures of the Planet?
Leave it to "antarcticice" to expose his own Governmental Science view of the World. Skepticalscience.com is just their idea of going to church every day. Weather (pun intended) they like it or not, their AGW science is also a religion based on an elusive thermostat. LOL!
By the way (for those who seem to selectively forget), the past two identifiable temperature periods (MWP and LIA) lasted several hundred years each and the current warming period is (at most) 250 years.
During natural warming, both: atmospheric CO2 follows ocean warming and atmospheric CO2 causes more tropospheric warming.
Currently, temperatures are following the CO2 increase.
To propose that the current increases in CO2 is following temperature rise, we would have to explain a number of things that are not explainable:
* Where is the CO2 coming from? It is not from the oceans because we know the oceans are now absorbing more CO2 because there is so much in the air. Warming oceans never acidify naturally as they are now. We know that currently oceans are uptaking 2 gigatons of Co2 per year. With carbon increasing in both the air and the water, where is it coming from and how is it getting there?
* What is happening to all the CO2 that we know humans are creating? Every time we burn something for energy -- gas, wood, coal,.. -- we create CO2 and CO2 is long-lived. Where is it going if not into the atmosphere?
* Why is it that the isotopes of the new CO2 in the atmosphere are skewed to those found in plants and animals rather than in the ocean? If the increased CO2 is coming from the oceans, then why have the isotopes changed?
This is absurdly simple: to you claim that increasing level is CO2 is natural, you have to explain where it came from, what happened to the anthropocentric CO2 and why the natural CO2 all of a sudden looks like CO2 from fuels.
CO2 has been an important feedback in natural climate change, and it is largely the study of natural climate change that allows us to understand how CO2 affects temperature. The difference now is that the source is human activity, primarily combustion.
Ha! Ha! M or should I say sock puppet. You know that is illegal.
If CO2 drives the temperature up, M, then how come the earth has cooled and yet the CO2 level has risen? Tsk. Tsk. I think you should go back to your original name and stop watching Al Gore movies. Ha! Ha!
CO2 follows the temperature. This has been proven many times. This is by a real scientist.
Quote by John Takeuchi, meteorologist: “The atmosphere has periodic warming and cooling cycles. The sun is the primary source of energy impacting the earth's surface. That energy heats the land and the seas, which then warm the air above them. Water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere also affect temperature....Oceans are the main repository for CO2. They release CO2 as their temperature rises - just like your beer. This strongly suggests that warming oceans - heated by the sun - are a major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere.”
There is a SCIENTIFIC explanation.
OH Ho! Look at LOOKIT, "Currently, temperatures are following the CO2 increase."
That is a total 100% fabrication.
Here is where it shows that the Earth has cooled for over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Yet everyone knows that the CO2 level has increased. You must be new here or you would know that that statement you made is just plain stupid. Stop listening to Al Gore and people like Peggy, CR or the one who idolizes Karl Marx. Those guys have consistently been proven so wrong on this site, that if I was anyone of them I would bury my head in shame. Rather listen to the intelligent people on this site.
However, please read what they have to say, it is amusing.
Ha! Ha! Just look at antarctic, "As cool as 2008 was, it was warmer than any record warm year before 1997, for all your huffing and puffing deniers have no real answer to this. " Yes we do. Your records start at around 1987 because that is when they standardized record keeping. So it is idle fact. You should know better.
Short version summation of all of the scientifically realistic answers: Yes. To both.
CO2 is a warming feedback. Like any feedback, that means that if warming starts for another reason, it will increase atmospheric CO2, which will increase warming, which will increase CO2. As with most feedbacks, it is constrained (1 unit of CO2 does not cause enough warming to release another full unit of CO2), so it won't lead to "runaway" warming, but it can easily make 1 degree of warming from, for example, changes in solar input into several degrees of total warming--probably a bit more if you add in the water feedback.
But, CO2 is also something we can independently add to the atmosphere and have it stay there, so it can also be a forcing. That means it can start warming on its own, leading to all the usual feedbacks from natural warming.
Both. Basic physics says doubling CO2 levels will increase temperatures by about 1.2C. History says that CO2 levels increase with temperature increase(as does basic physics, but the time lag is not basic).
It is possible that some amount of the current temperature increase and warming is happening due to temperature increases during the medieval warm period.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. you cannot change the laws of physics.
there is outgasing of more CO2 from oceans after they warm up, but the initial temperature rise is helped by to CO2.
the graph does not show short timescalse, like that of the last 100 years.
What we have with the ice age temperatures and CO2 is a very long timescale CO2 feedback effect. As the atmosphere warms, the oceans slowly warm and then slowly release CO2 into the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere even more. Conversely, as the atmosphere cools, the oceans slowly cool and, over many centuries, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The slow atmospheric CO2 response amplifies the gradual temperature changes which are driven by other factors. CO2 lags behind temperature because it is responding to it.
.
In recent years, CO2 is the quantity that has changed independently. Consequently temperature lags behind CO2. The response of atmospheric temperature to CO2 concentration is fast, so the time lag is short.
.
There are potentially other effects involved, though. Because atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased rapidly (over years rather than centuries) ocean absorption of the extra CO2 has nowhere near kept up with it. Nor has ocean energy uptake kept up with the effect of the excess CO2 on atmopheric temperature. The latter effect is important, but in affecting the time lag and magnitue of the overall atmospheric response to CO2 forcing. Ocean warming will limit the rate of ocean absorption of CO2 and both effects are slow.
Direct responses to changes in atmospheric temperature:
?Ocean temperature, positive, slow
.
Direct responses to changes in ocean temperature:
?Atmospheric temperature, positive, fast
?Ocean CO2, negative, slow
.
Direct responses to changes in ocean CO2:
?Atmospheric CO2, negative, slow
.
Direct responses to changes in atmospheric CO2:
?Atmospheric temperature, positive, fast
?Ocean temperature, positive, slow
?Ocean CO2, positive, slow
Slowness of ocean temperature responses is due to its high thermal mass. Don't forget the two negatives (involving ocean CO2) together make a positive!
btw, I think Gore made a serious error in eliding these phenomenon so casually in his film yet still drawing on the correlation long-time-scale correlation between T and CO2. Climate change is a serious issue which demands public understanding, not a 'soft sell'.
.
.
Of course CO2 follows temperature, our oceans contain thousands times more CO2 than our atmosphere, and absorb when cool and out-gas when warm, however I do not deny that our rising levels of CO2 as shown by Moana readings are caused by man.
However this is inconsequential as the warming effects of CO2 diminish with concentrations, and it is saturated with long wave infra red at current levels, any increase over 150ppm will have very little difference in temperatures, so stating rising temperatures will raise CO2 levels which will then raise warming further is incorrect.
In Earths past history we have had levels of many thousands of ppm, the Earth did not burn up then, in fact at one time we had an ice-age with thousands ppm of CO2.
-----------------------
Temperature and CO2 Records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
-----------------------
Your graph shows that if CO2 is solely a result of higher temperature as you claim then to get the current CO2 levels it should be more then 10°C warmer then it is today...
Why do you think that is genius [1]? Hint; We humans have been dumping the waste products from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere, maybe it is something in the waste...
I find it interesting that deniers keep trying to push this when the facts show Co2 contributes to temperature rise. the case denier try to make with this only relates to the natural shift from glacial to inter-glacial. A process started by the shift in our angle to the Sun which triggers initial warming the gap denier try to claim is the start of this process, as the Plant warms it triggers the release of Co2/Methane and oceanic process in freed up water cycles that start to add Co2 the record shows at this point that warming increases and that Co2 drives that increase.
This is in fact part of a full theory on the shift from glacial to interglacial, what denier do is just cherry pick out the parts they want and try to ignore the rest.
To me that shows the true nature of denial.
What we have now is not a natural shift from glacial to inter-glacial (in fact we should be slowly shifting the other way) but we are releasing the Co2 directly, so no 'lag' is needed although we are set to cause a similar effect as permafrost melts and we release even more Co2/Methane.
It's really not that hard to see when you try to push these lines you can only use links to sites like icecap, and the claim that the nature paper show that "CO2 FOLLOWS temperature" is complete fiction.
The paper states no such thing, it is talking about the need for better understanding of the Co2 process, let me guess you looked at the graph that shows a downward trend and think that shows a decline in Co2, it's doesn't, it shows a decline in the GROWTH rate of Co2.
I have to say it sounds like you either didn't understand what this paper is about or simple didn't read it.
Given the conclusions also talked of Ocean acidification (another thing deniers, deny) I find it funny you would use this paper as a reference for denier fiction.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v...
As for the icecap graph, what a joke, it's the same old game of starting with a very warm year (98) and end with a cool year (08) and pretending that short cherry picked period is cooling, no scientist has ever said there are not other process at work here 2008 was indeed a cooler year, but still warmer than the record warm year of 1995, warmest year in the modern record at the time, now beaten by a current cool year. of course what has happened since 2008
2009 was quite warm, 2010 is the new warmest year on record, 2011 was cool again, 2012 was 10th warmest year in the modern record
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
2013 is currently (with 10 months counted) Jan-Oct (Land & Ocean) the 7th warmest on record, this is what denier call cooling
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
We get variation in yearly temperatures due to cycles like El Nino/La Nina, 98 a year deniers love to reference is linked to the strongest El Nino of the last 100 years, 2008 linked to a quite strong La Nina, but here's the problem for deniers, overall we are still getting most years in the 10 ten warmest and most worryingly it is the cooler years pushing this look at these for the last 60+ years
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/gl...
As cool as 2008 was, it was warmer than any record warm year before 1997, for all your huffing and puffing deniers have no real answer to this.
As for this comment about Skeptical science
"So please don't bother to post any links for me from that lying propaganda site Skeptical Science.com, the site where even it's name is a lie. It's a tailor made site to support man-made Church of Global Warming true believers like yourself and it's hard to find a word of truth on it. And Warmists would be lost without it."
The only time I reference Skeptical science is for their list of denier theories (170+) you can claim that is faked but given many deniers have pushed those same theories here that would be a little difficult. Personally I try not to use any blogs and your opinion of Skeptical science is laughable given your own use of icecap, a site well known for pushing complete rubbish.
and this from one of your update comments,
"That is NOT correct according to all empirical data which I've already linked above."
I'm sorry but that is laughable, there is not one empirical link above your comment, whoops !
And the nature paper posted after this does not say what you claim it does, again whoops !
Currently it is driving temperature and you know full well it does. The page you link to is not really Wikipedia, it is a file someone uploaded (hence the word file in the link) which makes it suspect, of course most of your links are suspect anyway.
Visit the following link to educate your self http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-n...
if follows but natural fluctuations deviate it
