Does CO2 drive global temperature?

Question

There was a program on British tv recently that claimed that CO2 concentration lagged global temperature. This means that if you put them both on a graph together, peaks and lows of CO2 occur AFTER peaks and lows of global temperature. This is, they say, because CO2 concentration in the oceans is reduced as global temperatures increase and therefore collects in the atmosphere.

Global temperatures are, they say, driven by solar activity that is related to sunspot activity. They then produced a graph that did indeed show a very strong relationship between the two. They also produced a graph showing the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures for the same duration and the relationship was not nearly so clear?

What is the defense of CO2 driven global warming theorists to this?

Answer 1

Yeah, I find it very hard to accept as well.

Let’s look at the evidence…

As you point out, ice core samples show that, in the past, changes in CO2 have lagged behind changes in temp by around 800 years. Global Warming Alarmists (GWAs) will try and tell you that CO2 had an effect once levels *did* start rising, but temps still fell for 800 years while CO2 levels continued to rise, so whatever caused temps to fall was something with a *far* greater influence on the climate than CO2. Whatever that ‘something’ was, when it decided it was time for temps to fall, CO2 became irrelevant.

Most of the 20th century’s warming happened before the 1940s when mankind’s CO2 production was pretty insignificant – so it was unlikely that is was caused by CO2.

When mankind’s CO2 production really took off, during the Post War Economic Boom, temps actually fell.

And remember, mankind’s CO2 production only accounts for around 5% of the total production of the planet as a whole.

When I read this sort of information, it leaves me with the feeling that CO2 doesn’t seem to have much to do with it.

The GWAs, of course, are trying to prove that CO2 is the main cause. They do this by using computer climate models to predict what the climate will do in the future. But so far, they have been wrong, every single time.

Science is not proved by guessing again and again until you get it spot on and then shouting “See! SEE! We were right!” Any fool can do that.

And science is not decided by majority vote, either. So it doesn’t matter how many scientists agree, it’s quite possible that they are all wrong. It’s happened *many* times before and they often tried to claim that they were right because it was what the “consensus” thought. When scientists use the word consensus, it usually means that the science it weak. No one would suggest that the Sun is the centre of the solar system because it’s what the consensus believe. We know it is, because the evidence is clear and undeniable.

At the end of the day, all that matters is the scientific method. This requires that the scientists demonstrate that their theories match reality.

So far they don’t.


:::edit:::

I’d also like to comment on the likes of ‘Spacephantom’, above, who are attacking Durkin ad hominem. This is, of course, unforgivable in a scientific debate, but it’s typical of the GWAs and particularly hypocritical in this debate…

Have a look at this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=RR35B3DVK30UXQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0

Specifically, take a look at the two graphs on page 6. The top one is from the IPCC’s 1996 report, the bottom one, from the IPCC’s 2001 report.

Notice the absence of the “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” in the second graph.

The reason for their absence? The IPCC didn’t want to “confuse the public”.

Perhaps they thought that the top graph was “too wiggly-lined”?

Hmmm… Goose, meet gander.

Answer 2

The program was correct in saying that, in the past, CO2 has always lagged behind rises in average surface temperature. This is because CO2 is a feedback. That is, when average surface temperature goes up, more CO2 is released, driving the temperature up even further.

What they failed to mention is that CO2 is also a forcing, which means that it acts as a greenhouse gas. So releasing massive amounts of it in the air would be expected to have some marked result. The fact that the rises in the past have had no human influence acts only to further cement the idea that this particular trend is something new.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

As to the claims about the sun being the cause, I'm not qualified to answer those myself, so I'll just link you to a RealClimate article (RealClimate is a blog run by fifteen highly qualified scientists doing active research in the field) discussing it and let you decide for yourself.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-sunspots/

(There are a great many more articles on the site regarding solar forcing if these didn't answer your question)

Have fun!

Answer 3

In addition to the answers here (and I recommend realclimate) the graph of solar radiation and climate they showed only showed temperature up to the 1980s, data from after that period does not show a clear correlation, in fact the temp goes up when the solar cycle goes down. check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
and scroll down to global warming.
The GGWS failed to include the most recent (last couple of decades) of data.

It is correct that solar forcing does influence climate but there is additional forcing by CO2. After the post war economic boom where the programme states there was more CO2 than ever and no warming they failed to mention the impact of co-emitted sulphate aerosol from factories etc migrating to the upper atmosphere reflecting incoming radiation into space, thus giving a net cooling effect. However due to the large number of deaths associated with such pollution (smogs) the 'clean air acts' were introduced which vastly reduced this particulate sulphate concentration and allowed the true signal of CO2 temperature increase from being seen, which it has done and continues to do since then.
There are suggestions of emergency action by putting sulphate aerosol in the upper atmosphere to create a sun shield but the wisdom of this is under discussion.
The theory of CO2 effects in the atmosphere indicate that we are only beginning to see the effects of CO2 from about 50 years ago and we expect a time lag. the observed warming fits predictions. For example:
The oceans absorb more CO2 when they are cold, so imagine all the factories of the 50s pumping it our and going into the ocean, then, as the world warms due to either solar activity, CO2 or both, it all starts coming out of the oceans again and adding to the effect, hence the time lag. It all adds up and is backed up by rigorous science. Another important point overlooked was that the oceans act as temporary reservoir for the human produced CO2, so not all that comes out of the ocean is natural (see Carl Wunz's comments on realclimate.org) as suggested.

Finally there are the laws of physics to contend with. CO2 absorbs heat and warms the atmosphere. This is clear and very important. There were many misleading things in that programme but one of the worst was that CO2 is only a small part of the gas concentration in the atmosphere so it is unimportant - this is ridiculous! If I laced your food with cyanide would I say it's only a minor part so therefore unimportant? Dose doesn't equal the same response for all medicines. Daft.
The sun drives temperature and the CO2 amplifies it. We are turning up the volume.

Answer 4

It should be nothing. Granted we do burn a large amount of fuel ,but go measure it it is very low where did it all go?? It is not in the ocean just try this test .Take a coke and put in a little salt what happens ,do the oceans bubble like that??
Well the CO2 is so low that whoever put the green plants new what could do. The plants and photosynthesis have done a great job.Also CO2 is a very heavy gas and u will find it right on the ground,that doesnt sound like it could trap anything.

Answer 5

You are correct about CO2 concentrations lagging the mean temperature. The argument is that additional CO2 inserted into the atmosphere will cause a rise in temp which will drive up the carbon dioxide concentration and then the cycle runs away a bit due to positive feedback

Answer 6

CO 2 isn't the only factor in charge for international warming. some scientists have self assurance the Earth has long previous with the aid of this quite a few circumstances. basically like the cooling of the Earth as in ace a while, that's larger than us. that's genuine that CO 2 will improve international temperature. We make contributions to it each and all of the time, in specific circumstances without understanding it. Saving capability is an effortless way of no longer freeing as plenty CO 2 into the ambience. yet whether we weren't doing something approximately it the earth is gonna heat and funky for the reason that's a organic technique. Such modifications ought to wipe out species or each and every dwelling ingredient on the earth.

Answer 7

I think Gene and EnragedParrot (great name by the way) have the answer to your question covered.

I would just like to add that Martin Durkin, who made the programme has a track record of making outrageous anti-environmentalist claims which Channel 4 have had to apologise for in the past. One of the scientists involved in the programme has already complained to Channel 4 about being misrepresented. Also, Durkin has admitted that he had to modify one of the graphs because (in his words) it was "too wiggly-lined".

Not someone who's views on the environment should be trusted in my opinion.

In my view, the only good point made in the programme was the one regarding the possible effect of restricting CO2 emissions in the Third World. Great care has to be taken to make sure developing countries do not suffer in the effort to reduce global warming.

For a full analysis of the mistakes, exaggerations and untruths presented in the programme as fact - follow the link below.

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

And for more on Martin Durkin - follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

Addendum - please note that the answer below cites the same flawed and erroneous "evidence" as Durkin's documantary.

Answer 8

have u heard bout greenhouse effect
CO2 facilitates it and therefore does not allow heat waves of longer wavelength to escape out of the atmosphere causing a global warming situation.