Question about climate change

Good morning.

I have a question about global warming that I was hoping folks could help me with.

I see from the Vostok ice core data graph 2, posted in a link below, that over the last 18,000 years CO2 ppm has gradually increased from about 180 ppm to a little less than 300 ppm.

however during this period of gradual CO2 ppm increase, we see average temperatures often increase dramatically (+2.5C) then decrease dramatically, even though there is no sudden change in CO2 ppm (according to the graph).

My question is: do the Vostok ice cores also show periods of rapid and sudden CO2 ppm increase with no corresponding increase in temperature?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

thanks for your help.



*******FYI, this topic is not for denying climate change or attacking those who believe it is real or fake. Stay away or you will be reported promptly.******

 

Proxies, by their very nature have problems. For instance, with ice cores the further back you go the further apart they are taken in years. A lot can happen between an alleged 100 years between samples. Also the problem with the graph you show is not just a proxy but actual measurements tacked onto a proxy. For a true proxy, only the proxy should be used for continuity.

 

Keep in mind that Vostok is a single spot on planet earth, so it's not representative of global climate.

Basically, no. In recent times, CO2 and temperature are tightly correlated.

The issue of whether CO2 lags or leads isn't really important, as CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing. Orbital factors made for the initial warming, but they aren't strong enough to cause much warming. They did warm the oceans a bit and cause the oceans to release CO2, and from that point, the CO2 took over as the driver of warming.

 

Average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past 600 million years is ~ 2500 ppm. Plant life begins to die out at ~ 150 ppm CO2. We are currently in a CO2 starved period of our history.

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

 

Yes. The blade of the bogus hockey stick was produced by ignoring the "stick" proxy (which actually went down) and attaching measurements to the bogus tree ring data which was dishonestly used as a temperature proxy as tree ring specialists pointed out.

 

500 million years ago, the sun was 5% colder. Thus, when CO2 levels were low, Earth was a frozen snowball. When CO2 levels rose, Snowball Earth melted.

It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without taking CO2 into account. Thus, any claims that CO2 does not have a significant climate impact are crank pseudoscience. If you disagree, explain how the earth melted out of its Snowball Earth phase without invoking CO2.

"CO2 starved" is contradicted by observed reality, proven by the fact that plants were doing quite well at 290 ppm.

 

No, that's a debunked conspiracy theory, based mainly on the McIntyre & McKitrick cherrypicking fraud.

Multiple hockey sticks have been found using entirely independent means. All the proxies say the same thing, whether they come from tree rings, stalagmites, ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, or boreholes.

 

That’s ridiculous. Temperatures were much higher back then. The earth has been on a cooling trend for the last 60 million years.

Plants are doing much better as CO2 increases. Global warming and CO2 increases are beneficial.

 

That’s absurd. The warm periods of our current interglacial period have all been warmer than our current warm period.

 

According to who?

 

CO2 levels have to drop by about 40% for every 1% gain in solar luminosity for them to offset each other. 60 million years ago the Sun was 0.5% dimmer while CO2 levels have dropped 70% since then. Part of the reason why the planet has cooled is because the negative radiative forcing of the CO2 decline more than offset the positive radiative forcing of the solar luminosity increase.

 

Alley (2004) and Box (2009).

 

When you add in the last 170 years of warming in Greenland you'll see that the ice core data actually shows that the present is already very near the previous warm peaks of the holocene. Sure, it is likely that there are brief periods during the holocene in which temperatures were warmer than today, but we're talking about only 1C difference at most now...maybe.

 

One of McIntyre's complaints about the Mann study was that he thought Mann had drawn the graph upside down. He has since distanced himself from that infamous paper he McKitrick published now that many corroborating dendrochronology have been released. And, like you said, there have been various other techniques that have nothing to do with tree rings that also corroborate the "hockey-stick" graph.

By the way, guess which central player in the climategate controversy has yet to be investigated? I'll give you one guess.

 

What is the source for that absurd statement ?? Upside down ??

 

So you confirm the point.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/

https://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/#more-7411

 

Yes. It is what it is.

 

I had forgotten that Mann used the Tiljander sediments upside down. Where does McIntyre distance himself from that claim ?? Mann's work is dishonest and it is quite amazing that he actually holds any position at any University. The dishonest hockey stick is a great example of dishonest science for personal gain aided and abetted by the equally dishonest climate science community. Fund "research" and you can get anything you want.

 

Mann's style is certainly off putting, but his 1998 Nature publication was not dishonest nor was the graph included in it drawn upside down as has been claimed. In fact, Mann's original 1998 work doesn't even include the Tiljander proxies. It was Mann's 2008 work that cited Tiljander and it was McIntyre and McKitrick that misunderstood how Mann was using the Tiljander dataset. Not only did Mann not use Tiljander's data upside down, but even if he did it wouldn't have mattered because multivariant regression is insensitive to the sign. See here and here. Also keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of research agrees with the "hockey stick" graph including Alley's ice core data and various other proxy reconstructions. So to claim that the "hockey stick" graph is upside down is to claim that everybody has been drawing their graphs upside including even Alley's ice core data. Obviously this is a preposterous claim to begin with. It's also important to point out that of the central players in the climategate controversy McIntyre is the only one who wasn't investigated. That's rather convenient for him I think.

 

Truly a study in contradictions... as well as falsity. If, as was pointed out, plant life starts to die off at ~150 ppm, 290 PPM would support plant life, would it not? So what is contradictory about it, except your lack of understanding and still insisting on posting your thoughts here?

 

Whoooaaaa nelly.. What's this? You, actually admitting that we still haven't approached the high average temp data from the Holocene?? This is new.

But this seems to be progress.

 

Yes. I have no shame in admitting something that is supported by evidence. And it's not new; neither the data nor my acknowledgment of it.

By the way, the same data also says that the warming rate experienced today is faster than at any point during the holocene.

 

Does it? I don't suppose that you have the ability to actually measure it, given the limitations of the proxies to demonstrate those changes.. But hey, progress is progress...

 

Indeed. CO2 has never been as low as it has for the past few million years.