Correlating CO2 And Glacial Cycles

Climate scientists acknowledge that CO2 follows rather than leads temperature, but they insist that feedback loops drive the transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions.

Glacial cycles and carbon dioxide: A conceptual model

Let’s see if that makes any sense,  by making a few observations.

New Antarctic Ice Core Data

  1. Ice ages begin when CO2 is at a maximum. Ice ages end when CO2 is at a minimum. Both are the exact opposite of global warming theory.
  2. Sometimes temperatures rise quickly at 320 PPM CO2.  Sometimes temperatures fall quickly at 320 PPM CO2
  3. Sometimes temperatures rise quickly at 200 PPM CO2. Sometimes temperatures fall quickly at 200 PPM CO2

None of these observations are consistent with the idea that CO2 drives temperature.  CO2 follows ocean temperature, and there is zero empirical evidence of any reverse relationship. Consider points A and B below.  Same temperature and same CO2 level, yet at point A temperature is rising quickly, and at point B, temperature is falling quickly. Shortly thereafter, temperatures were rising quickly again.  This shows unequivocally that any effects of CO2 are trivial compared to the driving factors of climate.

If CO2 was the temperature control knob, it would be impossible to either start or  get out of an ice age. Obviously CO2 is not the control knob of temperature.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Correlating CO2 And Glacial Cycles

  1. GeologyJim says:

    Absolutely right-on, Tony! –

    The simplest refutation of the CAGW hypothesis is as you stated – global cooling (per ice cores) begins when CO2 values are high and rising. Global warming begins when CO2 values are low and declining.

    Changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature (whether rising or falling), so where EXACTLY is the Big Control Knob in the atmosphere??

    It is astonishing that so many people have been fooled in spite of such a simple empirical set of facts.

    Gobs of money thrown at public education have only given us generations of dumber people.

    This does not bode well.

    • Johansen says:

      GeoJim… this is from the teachers’ toolkit used in pre-K through 12th grade, part of Comprehensive Sexuality Education, already in your schools – you just don’t know it yet. Get ready for a generation of seriously f-up kids

      • Johansen says:

        this is not a joke, it’s in public schools right now

        • steve case says:

          When my daughter went off to UW Madison WI in 1992 for her freshman orientation, she came home with a cute little pamphlet titled “On With Condom” where in she was told about oral sex with flavored syrup.

          This crap has been going on and getting worse for a long time.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          The teacher impersonator’s creepy expression looks like he is going to turn and say:

          “Let me show you my toolkit, class.”

  2. steve case says:

    If CO2 was the temperature control knob, it would be impossible to either start or get out of an ice age. Obviously CO2 is not the control knob of temperature.

    From my file of tag lines quotes and smart remarks:

    “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious” – George Orwell.

  3. Griff says:

    glaciers are clearly receding worldwide and at a faster rates since 1980 (some exceptions for those at very high altitude: in a small number of cases the melt accelerates the flow rate)

    Here’s some background from your favourite source:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/24/climate-change-is-melting-the-french-alps-say-mountaineers

    “In the Alps, the glacier surfaces have shrunk by half between 1900 and 2012 with a strong acceleration of the melting processes since the 1980s,”

    • Gator says:

      It’s calked an interglacial Ms Griff, we have covered this ad nauseum.

      And why do you hate poor brown people and love fake news?

    • Rah says:

      Why can’t you directly address the fundamental fact Tony is presenting concerning Co2 and ocean temps Griff?

    • spike55 says:

      Most of those glaciers didn’t even exist before the LIA.

      You are a totally gullible and ignorant moron , griff, unable to comprehend anything except what is fed to you by your slimy AGW handlers.

      Your DESPERATE and DELIBERATE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL is getting to the truly idiotic stage.

    • Josh says:

      Himalayan glaciers :)

    • Mr GrimNasty says:

      https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/

      Just depends which side of the truth/uncertainty you want to dish up, don’t it old chap.

      But you are a reliably – believe the worst/ignore the contradictory evidence/glass half-empty – sort of person.

    • GeologyJim says:

      Griff –

      Receding glacier-fronts are observations. They are not, by themselves, evidence of cause.

      Glaciers are mass-balance beasts that grow and shrink based on dynamic changes in precipitation vs ablation/melting.

      Also note: Receding glacier-fronts expose things like fossil forests and artifacts of human habitation, farming, mining, etc. dating to warmer periods in the past. These are also observations.

      The sub-glacial observations/evidence require that: 1) local conditions were persistently and substantially warmer in the “deep past” when forests grew and humans inhabited; 2) local conditions were persistently and substantially colder when glaciers advanced and covered the sites; and 3) local conditions have persistently and substantially warmed as the glaciers have receded, but are not as warm as during event 1) named above.

      In other words, we are looking at prima facie evidence of cyclic behavior, and of conditions today that are less “extreme” (neither as warm nor as cold) as in the past.

      Most commenters here understand these observations and the logical consequences. You seem to struggle with both.

      You have work to do.

      • Gator says:

        Ms Griff has no interest in understanding science or the world around her. She has an anti-human agenda and facts be damned.

  4. cJames says:

    Be aware Griff is an embittered libertarian pensioner who is an ex Dairy factory worker from Northland New Zealand. He has no scientific of maths ability. Just does a lot of Google searches, often not even bothering to read what he posts.
    He is regularly suspended from New Zealand Blogs because of his abuse.
    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/comments_policy

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Ms Griff sounds very bitter but she’s not a libertarian. The only sign of being retired I’ve seen is her obvious retirement from facts and reason but I can’t imagine she was ever employed in a field requiring the use of facts and reason.

      I also know that most dairy plants have higher standards than you indicate.

    • Gator says:

      I guess even manure has a job at most dairies.

      Libertarian? Hardly.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    It’s amazing that this well-established observational fact has been successfully by-passed by the alarmists. Totally underserved would be an understatement. It should be one of several irrefutably fatal flaws in their AGW theory which in turn should’ve long-since killed this nonsense. (T rising before CO2 / No CO2 driving T correlation, low to zero ECS, no Tropospheric hot spot and no evidence whatsoever of feedbacks and amplifications essential for runaway warming)
    As far as I’m concerned it simply reinforces my view AGW is a political construct rather than science-based.
    In short, they conjured AGW theory up as a way to control human industrial output but got caught out when their theory repeatedly failed basic observational tests, but by then they were committed and a retreat was impossible without losing reputations.
    To cover their tracks they’ve been lying ever since.

  6. Josh says:

    With the fraudulent GISS graph, the alarmist contradict themselves by showing 1910s not the late 1880s as the lowest global temps despite the consistent rise in CO2 since 1880s. Forgot to leave that inconvenient truth it seems?

  7. MGJ says:

    According to the Hogg paper: “…temperature rises lead CO2 increases…but it is the feedback between these two quantities that drives the abrupt warming…”

    Given the simplicity, elegance and explanatory power of the alternative/null hypothesis (i.e. CO2 follows ocean temperature) it is important to come up with a circular argument with a tortuously complicated set of feedback loops, with (I assume) no basis in objective reality, in order to maximise research funding.

  8. Phil. says:

    If CO2 was the temperature control knob, it would be impossible to either start or get out of an ice age.

    Not true, we’re talking about about a non-linear oscillatory system which can be triggered by very small changes in a parameter. See Andronov, Vitt and Khaikin which used to be thought of as the ‘bible’ on the subject.

    CO2 follows ocean temperature, and there is zero empirical evidence of any reverse relationship.

    If that is the case then what change in ocean temperature caused the recent increase in CO2?
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/co2_atmosphere.jpg

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hmmmm… How about ocean warming from the Medieval Warm Period? That would pretty well match the observed lag period between warming and CO2 increase.

      • Gator says:

        Come on Jason! I was trying to have some fun here…

      • spike55 says:

        Not only the ocean warming.

        The slight SOLAR warming will have started the decay of large amounts of frozen carbon matter that died during the LIA.

        Natural glacial retreat also releases CO2

        Add that to the expansion of vegetation , hence the expansion of critters like termites, and there are obvious reason why atmospheric CO2 has risen.

        The world’s sources of NATURAL atmospheric CO2 have risen considerably since the LIA.

      • Phil. says:

        But it doesn’t agree with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation for water, something like 16ppm/ºC.

    • Gator says:

      Really? You cannot figure that out? Or is it you would prefer to not know?

      We have already established that you have no issues with cherry picking, wildly in accurate predictions and fake graphs, as long as they support your weird religion.

      So, I guess it is safe to say that you will deny the obvious answer.

    • Robert Austin says:

      No Phil.,
      You (and some others) are wildly speculating without evidence that the climate system is exquisitely sensitive to CO2. Hence your invocation of the butterfly wing flap of CO2 sending the climate careening off into a hotter regime. I am sure it disappoints you that the paleoclimatic record does not show a strong response to atmospheric CO2 concentration changes but nature is oblivious to your political objectives.

      • Phil. says:

        Nothing of the sort, just observing that Tony’s belief that: “If CO2 was the temperature control knob, it would be impossible to either start or get out of an ice age”, isn’t valid in a non-linear oscillating system, which his graph clearly shows it is. The data shows that the climate is in an oscillatory mode, possibly a limit cycle. What we are seeing now though is a strong perturbation of the CO2 and it’s quite possible that this could lead to a shift in phase space which could lead to another stationary state.

        • spike55 says:

          “it’s quite possible that this could lead to a shift in phase space “

          ROFLMAO !

          What a load of brain-hosed FANTASY and UTTER BS !!

          Peak CO2 was NEVER able to maintain peak temperature, phlop.

          It never has triggered any warming

          Get over it.

          There is no empirical evidence of CO2 causing atmospheric warming

          It is a MYTH..

          a FANTASY.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            At least admit that perturbation is strong with Phil and nobody knows what it could trigger.

    • spike55 says:

      How about we use un-cherry-picked measurements.

    • spike55 says:

      Phlop, you do know that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that enhance atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth, don’t you ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *