From here:
Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.
That chart's a few years old. In the meantime, CO2 is over 400 ppm. If the relationship had held as the warmenists predicted, then it would be about 10C warmer than it is, which it clearly isn't.
Their 'climate models' need a few more tweaks to explain that one away, don't they?
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
10 hours ago
15 comments:
That chart is so smoothed the last 50 years of CO2 increase would never show, so you can't really make any comparisons between that and a chart of CO2 vs temperature over the last 100 years.
Thats the whole issue with 'climate change' and 'global warming' - the era we're talking about (60-70 years post 1950) as a percentage of the earth's history is akin to a micro second in a 100 year old person's life. There is no way of knowing whether what we see today is representative of anything or not.
The data that chart comes from will be ice cores, Vostok probably, and each data point be 1000 years at least. The width of the line must be several thousand years on its own on that scale.
S, look at the right hand side of the chart and work out where 400ppm would be on the Y axis.
It really doesn't matter whether it's accurate or not. The important bit is whether increased temperatures drive the increase in CO2 or vice versa. The warmmongers want you to believe the latter, but if you look at that chart, you can clearly see that in nearly all cases, the temperature change precedes the corresponding change in CO2.
"look at the right hand side of the chart and work out where 400ppm would be on the Y axis"
It doesn't matter where 400 would be on the Y axis, those figures are probably 1000 years smoothed, so 50 years of higher CO2 levels would not appear, if they subsequently fell within the same period. Each of the data points on that chart equate to the average CO2 level from the Battle of Hastings to now. There could be decades even centuries of higher than current CO2 levels in the past, but they would never show up on a chart of that sort of time scale, unless they persisted for thousands of years. Comparing datasets, one with annual data points and one with 1000 year data points is useless, you can't see the annual variation on such a long timescale.
B, lolz
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/amp/
S, when arguing with Home-Owner-Ists or warmenists, I accept their facts and defeat them with logic.
Mark, I might have known they'd have an "explanation" for that.
Also see contemporary data. 1850 to 2015. Industrial Co2. The Hadley , Hadcrut 4 temperature incline 1910 to 1950 is very similar to the incline 1970 to 2015, but the industrial co2 emissions are predominately from 1950 onwards.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
D, I am sure they can explain that away somehow.
Or just ignore it, like the Mediaeval Warm Period, about which a warmmonger I was arguing with, dismissed the considerable documentary and other primary sources as "a lot of folk stories".
I agree with Bayard, that on the crude graph, temperature change precedes carbon dioxide. But that seems too much of a schoolboy-error. Im sure there's a plausible explanation.
B, get away with your mediaeval warm period, they didn't have accurate thermometers.
JB, temp falls precede CO2 falls quite markedly. I believe temp increases precede/trigger CO2 increases, but the warming happens very quickly so you can't see it on that chart. Cooling happens much more gradually.
Mark, funnily enough, the warmmonger didn't think of that one.
B, my stupid comment was inspired by PC156 replying to you, tenth comment down on this post.
Ah, that was the very argument to which I was referring. I thought I'd had it on another blog, with another warmmonger.
Post a Comment