2 ms·

The following is literally the first Google result for "why does CO2 concentration lag behind temperature". http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatur

by yongjik 11y ago

The following is literally the first Google result for "why does CO2 concentration lag behind temperature". http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm > ... This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.

narrator 11y ago
In the Vostok data the temperature falls first and then the CO2 falls. If the CO2 released amplified the increased warming trend then why would the temperature suddenly reverse absent a CO2 drop? BTW, I am really really disappointed in the quality of all the replies. It's mostly ad hominem and hand-waving. This is the one reply that's not but it doesn't explain the behavior of the drop in temperature. Thus to sum it up: Increased temperature causes gas to become less soluble in the ocean, thus leading to increased CO2. Decreased temperature causes CO2 to become more soluble in the ocean thus leading to decreased CO2. This data shows then that CO2 increases are not enough to cause warming all by themselves or to prevent cooling all by themselves. Obviously a very large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to warming (e.g Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2) but we're many orders of magnitude off from that (0.04% CO2). So we are left with what I like to call a Listerine argument: Listerine has been selling more over the past century, Listerine prevents tooth decay, thus Listerine is the cause of the improvement in dental health over the past century. Thus we should put Listerine in the water and implement a global tax so everyone can have Listerine.
- cygx 11y ago
  You might be interested in the opinion of Richard Muller: In 2010, I watched one of his talks in which he had very uncharitable things to say about some groups of climate scientists and why he did not consider them trustworthy [1]. At about 34:28 of the video, you can hear him say the following: This is why I'm now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way. He did [2]. What was his conclusion? Global warming is real, and in all likelihood the culprit is indeed CO2. How did he come to that conclusion? Because it's the only proposed mechanism for global warming that actually fits the data on the 250y scale. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI [2] http://berkeleyearth.org/ http://berkeleyearth.org/

by yongjik 11y ago

narrator 11y ago

In the Vostok data the temperature falls first and then the CO2 falls. If the CO2 released amplified the increased warming trend then why would the temperature suddenly reverse absent a CO2 drop? BTW, I am really really disappointed in the quality of all the replies. It's mostly ad hominem and hand-waving. This is the one reply that's not but it doesn't explain the behavior of the drop in temperature. Thus to sum it up: Increased temperature causes gas to become less soluble in the ocean, thus leading to increased CO2. Decreased temperature causes CO2 to become more soluble in the ocean thus leading to decreased CO2. This data shows then that CO2 increases are not enough to cause warming all by themselves or to prevent cooling all by themselves. Obviously a very large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to warming (e.g Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2) but we're many orders of magnitude off from that (0.04% CO2). So we are left with what I like to call a Listerine argument: Listerine has been selling more over the past century, Listerine prevents tooth decay, thus Listerine is the cause of the improvement in dental health over the past century. Thus we should put Listerine in the water and implement a global tax so everyone can have Listerine.

cygx 11y ago
You might be interested in the opinion of Richard Muller: In 2010, I watched one of his talks in which he had very uncharitable things to say about some groups of climate scientists and why he did not consider them trustworthy [1]. At about 34:28 of the video, you can hear him say the following: This is why I'm now leading a study to redo all this in a totally transparent way. He did [2]. What was his conclusion? Global warming is real, and in all likelihood the culprit is indeed CO2. How did he come to that conclusion? Because it's the only proposed mechanism for global warming that actually fits the data on the 250y scale. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI [2] http://berkeleyearth.org/ http://berkeleyearth.org/