Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales.

[toobfreak]

Earth's rotation, tilt and orbit affects the climate.
There is nothing we can do about it.

Not so much the rotation, Trog, it is the wobble in Earth's inclination to the plane of its revolutions around the Sun combined with variations in the eccentricity and obliqueness of that orbit, plus variations in the output of the Sun itself. Not included but worth mentioning is cycles in life on Earth itself, which help drive some of the oscillations in the Earth climate from baked potato to snowball Earth due to rock and organic consumption and releases of things like methane, oxygen and such.

The argument can be made that few planets have as stable a life cycle as the Earth and that we owe it largely due to the overly large Moon, which acts much like a damper and stabilizer of our double Earth-Moon system, and that for life to succeed as it has done here, any alien planet would need a very similar set of circumstances.

 

[abu afak]

Sigh how many times do I have to tell YOU and other Warmist/alarmists that I have long ago agreed that CO2 absorbs IR that it has some warm forcing effect that there is a warming trend since the 1690's the beginning of the end of the LIA time and that humans contribute to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The problem YOU and other warmist/alarmists have is that the CO2 by itself has very little warm forcing effect left at the 430 ppm level thus very little postulated warming left for the future it is the POSITIVE Feedback Loop that is supposed to generate the large and rapid warming trend which never shows up and that YOU don't even talk about anymore because it isn't there!

Without that never seen Positive Feedback Loop there is very little warm forcing to be had thus NO climate emergency is building into the future which is why I oppose you and others so much since you don't have shit to run for your climate delusions.

Abu writes,

"And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT) that CO2 (CH4, other GHGs too) both initially lag and then contribute to/Exacerbate GW."

I used to be on warmist/alarmists website over this very thing and they NEVER back up this hilarious claim because there is nothing that exist but non falsifiable models which is why I regard warmists as being stupid as shit on it since how did it warm for hundreds of years without any help from a trace molecule that change very little in concentration in those same hundreds of years?

That is why I laugh when you believe in this bullshit!

You are a Conspiracist/Nutbag who gets all your info from WUWT clowns.
Your OP is just like those of another Wild Partisan Nutbag, PoliticalChic

Triple spaces to title line with one sentence "comment from WUWT?" LOL

Triple Space to post one name.

Triple space to the Year.

Triple space to word "excerpt."

Triple space to authors of excerpt... again.

Triple Space to ONE SENTENCE excerpt.

Triple space to word "Link."

Triple space to add more spacers. =====

Triple space to "MORE at link."


That is someone who is feeling INADEQUATE.
Adding volume for the illusion of more content/importance.
- In your most recent You did not refute a word I said (and those were my own words which make my Coherent case for GHG warming alone), not just as you just did, take a contrary position. Because your OP and subsequent post make NO sense about temp lagging a Unique 50% rise in Co2.
None at all.
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are a Conspiracist/Nutbag who gets all your info from WUWT clowns.

Your OP is just like those of another Wild Partisan Nutbag, PoliticalChic
Triple spaces to title line with one sentence comment from WUWT. LOL


Trible Space do post one name


Triple space to the Year.


Triple space to word "excerpt"


Triple Space top ONE SENTENCE excerpt.


Triple space to "Link"


Triple space to more spacers =====

Triple space to "MORE at link"


That is someone who is feeling INADEQUATE.
Adding volume for the illusion of more content

In your most recent You did not refute a word I said (and those were my own words which make my coherent case for GHG warming alone), not just as you just did, take a contrary position. Because your op makes NO sense about temp lagging a 50% rise in Co2.
None at all.
`

Your reply is to scream this is you having a tantrum.

 

[ReinyDays]

It isn't my "theory" you idiot! it is from all those papers you didn't read not even the full access paper you ignored which explains the shifts in the patterns.

You have now spent more time begging me to do your homework than to just do it yourself you have no excuse for your being lazy.

Yawn ... the papers don't say ... you're hiding behind the paywall ...

If these are scientific papers, then you wouldn't understand them ... as is obvious ... there's NO scientific theory that claims carbon dioxide levels follow temperature by 800 years ... someopne lied to you and you're just blindly repeating it ...

You've taken more time to call me lazy than it would have telling me the theory you're advocating ... sad ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yawn ... the papers don't say ... you're hiding behind the paywall ...

If these are scientific papers, then you wouldn't understand them ... as is obvious ... there's NO scientific theory that claims carbon dioxide levels follow temperature by 800 years ... someopne lied to you and you're just blindly repeating it ...

You've taken more time to call me lazy than it would have telling me the theory you're advocating ... sad ...

I read Caillons paper first time in 2005 here is the ABSTRACT from the Caillon 2003 paper you didn't read:

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

bolding mine

===

I KNOW you didn't look in the Caillon or Fisher or Monnin published papers in the Jo Nova article because they are DEAD links thus you have been exposed for not reading the abstracts, you want to go on denying your laziness over this?

ALL of the papers say that CO2 changes LAGS Temperature changes and you ignored the Charts based on the Petit data all posted for you showing obvious lags of CO2 in them, from Jo Nova,

"It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present."

===

Here is the only linked paper that still works, Mudelesee:

5. Conclusions

This study has estimated the phase relations (leads/lags) of Vostok's CO2 record relative to air temperature and global ice volume over the last 420 ka, extending the range of previous phase determinations by about 200 ka. Lagged GLS regression proved to be an e$cient and precise estimation technique because it uses all data, and recognizes persistence inherent in the data. Bootstrap resampling allowed account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. On long timescales, variations in Vostok's CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record (dD) by 1.3$1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations (derived from Vostok's d18O!*3 and marine d18O.!3) by 2.7 $1.3 ka. Signi"cant short-term changes in lag time occurred not only subsequent to glacial Termination II, but also subsequent to Termination III. A summary of the results of this study is shown in Fig. 6. As regards causal explanations of Late Pleistocene glacial cycles, it has to be considered that Vostok's air temperature (dD) represents, at best, the Southern Hemisphere. Blunier et al. (1998) estimated that Greenland temperature variations lag behind those of Vostok by 1}2.5 ka over the period 47}23 ka. Thus, the geological relationships between variations in atmospheric CO2 content, global temperature and ice volume a.

red bolding mine
=====

Reinydays writes,

"You've taken more time to call me lazy than it would have telling me the theory you're advocating ... sad ..."

I am trying hard not to call you liar about this statement you keep saying I am advocating a "theory" when I never talked about theories at all, it has always been about what the those papers saying there are CO2 change is lagging behind Temperature changes that is it.

You have been exposed for not reading the abstracts that backs me up 100% because you didn't bother to check those DEAD links at all since you never mentioned them being dead links.

I gave you enough and you come back with more bullshit about something I never talked about that is ....... sad.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In a SHOCKING turn of events, a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board have not outsmarted the global scientific community.

RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)

RealClimate: When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up most frequently is this: “Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?" On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable...

www.realclimate.org

Starting point:

"On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. "

 

[ding]

In a SHOCKING turn of events, a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board have not outsmarted the global scientific community.

RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)

RealClimate: When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up most frequently is this: “Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?" On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable...

www.realclimate.org

Starting point:

"On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn’t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. "

But never quantified in a controlled laboratory experiment so we don't really know what that relationship is but if they ever did the extent of the associated warming would be limited to that effect and not amplified by any imaginary climate sensitivity.

 

[ReinyDays]

I read Caillons paper first time in 2005 here is the ABSTRACT from the Caillon 2003 paper you didn't read:

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

bolding mine

===

I KNOW you didn't look in the Caillon or Fisher or Monnin published papers in the Jo Nova article because they are DEAD links thus you have been exposed for not reading the abstracts, you want to go on denying your laziness over this?

ALL of the papers say that CO2 changes LAGS Temperature changes and you ignored the Charts based on the Petit data all posted for you showing obvious lags of CO2 in them, from Jo Nova,

"It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present."

===

Here is the only linked paper that still works, Mudelesee:

5. Conclusions

This study has estimated the phase relations (leads/lags) of Vostok's CO2 record relative to air temperature and global ice volume over the last 420 ka, extending the range of previous phase determinations by about 200 ka. Lagged GLS regression proved to be an e$cient and precise estimation technique because it uses all data, and recognizes persistence inherent in the data. Bootstrap resampling allowed account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. On long timescales, variations in Vostok's CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record (dD) by 1.3$1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations (derived from Vostok's d18O!*3 and marine d18O.!3) by 2.7 $1.3 ka. Signi"cant short-term changes in lag time occurred not only subsequent to glacial Termination II, but also subsequent to Termination III. A summary of the results of this study is shown in Fig. 6. As regards causal explanations of Late Pleistocene glacial cycles, it has to be considered that Vostok's air temperature (dD) represents, at best, the Southern Hemisphere. Blunier et al. (1998) estimated that Greenland temperature variations lag behind those of Vostok by 1}2.5 ka over the period 47}23 ka. Thus, the geological relationships between variations in atmospheric CO2 content, global temperature and ice volume a.

red bolding mine
=====

Reinydays writes,

"You've taken more time to call me lazy than it would have telling me the theory you're advocating ... sad ..."

I am trying hard not to call you liar about this statement you keep saying I am advocating a "theory" when I never talked about theories at all, it has always been about what the those papers saying there are CO2 change is lagging behind Temperature changes that is it.

You have been exposed for not reading the abstracts that backs me up 100% because you didn't bother to check those DEAD links at all since you never mentioned them being dead links.

I gave you enough and you come back with more bullshit about something I never talked about that is ....... sad.

Show me the data ... you don't seem to understand this is from 240,000 years ago ... [shrugs shoulders] ... the authors only claim a suggestion of correlation ... why are you claiming certainty? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Show me the data ... you don't seem to understand this is from 240,000 years ago ... [shrugs shoulders] ... the authors only claim a suggestion of correlation ... why are you claiming certainty? ...

You are plainly lost since I gave you the data access, the charts, the abstracts, and more you ignore them.

Here it is again:

"It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present."

I hope you can see red color.

There is the data for the THIRD time I posted, she builds the chart based on the data links you keep avoiding.



I am not claiming certainty I am pointing out a number of papers using specific proxies that paper after paper shows the same thing over and over that CO2 lags Temperature change.

I am done here.