What is the reason for Co2 levels going up after climate change?

Question

As has been proven by looking at ice core samples CO2 went up after the temperature rose. Surely if it CO2 was the contributing factor to global warming then it would have risen before the temperatures went up. If not why did it only go up afterwards.

by the way it is not denied by scientists that the CO2 went up after rather than before, in case anyone starts berating me about it.

Answer 1

As others have pointed out CO2 does not cause the termination of ice ages.

The following is a quote from JOHN WALKUP’s realclimate.org link…

“Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties.”

Thus, it is this “(currently unknown) process” that begins the ice age termination and CO2 levels start rising around 800 years later as a result.

However, what no Global Warming Alarmist ever talks about (and none of JOHN WALKUP’s links mention – I read them all to check) is that, when temperature starts to fall again, there is another 800ish year lag before CO2 starts falling. Let’s be very clear about this: for 800ish years, temperature goes down, while CO2 goes up. Clearly, when this is happening, CO2 is largely irrelevant.

This is one of the reasons that I have doubts about the whole AGW hypothesis. I find it very difficult to accept that CO2 is having as much of an effect as the Alarmists are claiming.

Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge that CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. So, if levels of CO2 have risen, then, everything else being equal, we would expect to see some warming. What I disagree with is the magnitude of the warming we would expect to see.

When you add to this the scare-mongering, hypocrisy, scheming, and, arguably, lies of the Global Warming Alarmists, you can’t help but be a sceptic. To believe it, you have to turn a blind eye to all the dodgy things that are going on. I for one won’t accept the hypothesis until it is supported by hard facts that are free of “spin”. Currently it is not.

Answer 2

This is an interesting point

scientists explain it as follows:

- solar radiation hitting the earth increases and reaches a maximum

- temperature goes up, solar radiation starts decreasing

- the solar radiation warms the oceans faster than air temperature alone - this is because light penetrates further than just the ocean surface - where as heat is transfered from the atmosphere at the surface only.

- this energy acts over hundreds of years on deep waters - flushing out co2 in them - co2 reaches a max 800 years later

-solar radiation decreases, but co2 acts to slow the cooling process (which takes about 5000 years)

other points:

-slight changes in solar radiation have a more significant effect on evaporation than air temperature - as indicated by pan evaporation studies throughout the 19th and 20th century
when tempertures increased while pan evaporation decreased.

- solar radiation was the main driver of co2 and temperature in the past, temperature did not drive co2

-according to ice core data co2 is higher now than at any point in the last 800,000 years - which is the limit to ice core data

- there was no solar maximum 800 years ago, and temeratures today are higher than they were then

- oceans uptake more co2 when co2 levels in the atmosphere are high - a concentration gradient fueled phenomena

- oceans dissolve less co2 when they are warm

Answer 3

Just a simple misinterpretation of the meaning of some data, like most of the climate myths

As several have pointed out, Real Climate says, no actual lag.

As New scientist says

"rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet."

As the UK site says "The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming."

Answer 4

I agree 100% with amancalledchuda.

Ask yourself this. If CO2 is responsible for global warming and CO2 is released after the warming of the climate, how would the planet ever cool? Wouldn't the release of CO2 continue the warming which would continue to cause the release of more CO2?

Considering the fact that the planet isn't in a continual warming trend, I would have to say that something just doesn't add up as is the case with many of the "facts" that the alarmists spew with religious fervor.

Answer 5

The theory is that global warming is a self-reinforcing trend and as the global temp rises then more CO2 is released.

Global warming (caused by the sun, rather than our use of fossil fuels, to my understanding) directly affects CO2 levels. That is, as the earth warms, the oceans (the largest repository of CO2) release CO2; as the earth cools, oceans absorb CO2.

Science is not perfect and is just our best try at understanding what's going on around us.

Answer 6

Even burning bulbs/tube lights contribute CO2 to environs.
I was honored by the World Bank for my following innovative idea:
A grassroot level initiative U-SEE - Unlimited Savings of Electrical Energy which gives to the world how we can stop misuse of electricity during day time when the sun is shining. My idea revolves around "bring home the sunshine" and "get moonlight from sunlight". Have a look at the following World Bank link and let me know if you want more details. The idea is a child's play and is so simple but saves billions of units of costly electricity and also reduces over exploitation of the natural resources like oil, coal, water and also reduces global warming from stopping burning of bulbs.
Link: http://dmblog.worldbank.org/mirrors-can-bring-light-rural-homes
Please spread this link to all your family members, friends and neighbors. Let them also benefit and save the world before it is too late.
[e-mail] -
Vasanthkumar Mysoremath, Bangalore, India

Answer 7

The larger tress grow the more Co2 they emit. As trees die they also emit Co2. There are likely many factors that spiked the Co2 levels. They fact that they happened after the temperature rose may have to do with the rapid growth of plants.

Answer 8

Historically CO2 has followed temperature because there was another factor initiating the global warming. See this entry on Milankovich Cycles for further details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle

It's important to note that according to these cycles, we should be in a cooling period right now:

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

So in the past after the warming cycle had begun, the oceans warmed. CO2 is less soluble in warm water, so at a certain point (after about 800 years of warming) they began to release CO2, which increased the global warming.

Now humans are releasing CO2, so the temperature is responding rather than vice-versa as was the case historically.

Answer 9

no longer something going to ensue rather. To the Earth OR by employing way of worldwide settlement. At 0.04% of the Earth's environment the contribution of CO2 to worldwide Temperatures is incomprehensible. At 0.05% it will be meaningless. And at 0.06 as quickly as we run out of fossil fuels this is going to nonetheless be meaningless. And it rather is why there isn't any political will to certainly replace CO2 emissions. using fact CO2 emissions ARE decrease priced capability that modern-day Civilization runs on. there is only no rational reason in the back of political leaders to place their countries at a draw back in the worldwide monetary device. this is all extremely undemanding as quickly as you realize that AGW is a faith. On a nationwide point Politicians have constantly used faith to administration their very own Societies. AGW is largely an excellent excuse for Socialists to enhance taxes & benefit the plenty coveted social administration. Nationally 'Cap & commerce' could enhance Obama's political administration. worldwide 'Cap & commerce' could hand this capability over to a UN committee. this is the Church of britain. Kings do no longer want to cede capability to the Pope. it rather is why you're meant to believe. however the powers that be do no longer. Do you think of people like Al Gore and Barrack Obama believe? Barrack Obama took a Jumbo Jet, plus decoy, plus fighter escort to the Copenhagen convention which he would have attended just about. superb behaviour for a champion of carbon restraint? this is like the Pope renouncing materialism then residing in a palace. this is like Al Gore sizable carbon footprint. the problem with a worldwide settlement is this is attempting to apply faith to TAKE capability from people who've used it to benefit capability. no longer something will ensue to the ambience using fact AGW is faith extremely than technological know-how. And no longer something will come from the international conferences using fact it rather is a team of Atheistic Kings attending non secular ceremonies for public show.

Answer 10

Once the planet warms up:
- the CO2 solved in the oceans is partly released
- the methane under permafrost or on seabed is released and turns into CO2 after some decades

These are the circle effects of global warming.