Great by a guest climatologist over at Watts Up With That discussing the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere based upon some historical data obtained from ice cores. Read the whole thing to get the nitty gritty of the science. His conclusions are below, post
The last 5,000 years are trivial compared to the 420,000 years of the Vostok record; of even less significance are the last 1,200 years. However, climate science has put great emphasis on the features of this interval, even though they fit within the noise-envelope. The “medieval warm period” spanned 800 CE to 1,200 CE; Vostok shows it wasn’t really warm, but wasn’t really cold either. The “little ice age” followed (although average T was barely lower), and ended after the low of -1.84 °C around 1,770 CE. By the early 1800s, T was higher than it is at present, and it has fluctuated within levels typical of the last 11,000 years since then. It is remarkable that climate hysteria should be based on noise-level changes in T over the last 200 years, which is an eye-blink in the Vostok record. It seems to be the superstition of our time.In summary, the Vostok record indicates that CO2 is in lagged equilibrium with T and that, for the range of T in Vostok, the dependency of CO2 on T is essentially linear. Unnaturally high CO2 for the last 5,000 years has had no apparent effect on T. This empirical evidence supports a conclusion that there cannot be any significant feedback between CO2 and T. Such feedback would cause predicted T and CO2 to show fundamental disagreement with the lag, spectrum and amplitudes evident in the Vostok record.It is impossible to say how enduring the feedback fallacy will be. However, any such model proposed in the future can be regarded as qualitative if it does not specify lag, characteristic amplitude and period, and as speculative if it cannot be compared to the Vostok record. Accordingly, any such model can be ignored.If we may depart for a moment from objectivity, any such model should be ignored if its proponents declare that it shows polar bears are in peril, and you can save them by painting your roof white and burning nuts and corn in your car.
Again, read the whole thing to get it all in context. Essentially, what he is saying is that the relationship between temperature and CO2 level in the atmosphere is not based upon a direct feedback correspondence. In other words, temperature is not responding to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Instead, the empirical evidence from the Vostok cores seems to suggest that as temperature changes, CO2 levels follow as a lagging indicator seeking to restablish an equilibrium between the two variables. Our present rise in CO2 levels follows a well-established pattern of CO2 response to previous temperature increases. Thus, the AGW fanatics have it backwards. Instead of increased CO2 contributing to temperature increase, it seems as if it may be the other way around.
Tags: Global Warming, Science
