How can CO2 cause global warming if historical temperatures decline rapidly in the presence of elevated CO2?

Question

The Vostok ice core data shows that, without exception, every temperature peak in the historical record CO2 concentrations remain high while temperatures drop precipitously. How, then, can CO2 cause global warming?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Bob: The Vostok ice core data is the only extended set of temperature/CO2 data and never, in the entire data history, has increases in CO2 preceded temperature changes—in either direction. How, then, do you arrive at a contrary statement being “basic science”?

EnragedP: You state with a relatively straight face that humans cause global warming but CO2 is not a necessary driver the Vostok data shows it has never been. Since the only large-scale influence that humans have on the atmosphere is through CO2 production, how do you make such a statement without descending into paroxysms of laughter?

Dana1981: The plot is somewhat nonstandard in that time goes from right to left. Note the behavior at the temperature peak approx. 130,000 years ago. The temperature (red trace) falls while the blue trace remains elevated (remember, going from right to left). If CO2 “amplifies the warming”, as you state, why does the temperature fall while it is “amplifying”? The Vostok data record I reference IS the basic science. It never shows CO2 levels changing before temperatures do. How, then, is it a basic scientific “fact” that the opposite it true?

Answer 1

It doesn't. Warmth causes co2. As you can clearly see from the ice core data that co2 lags temperature change by some 800 years.

We can also see this today, as 1998 was the warmest year in recent times even though co2 out put has steadily increased.

Answer 2

You keep making this argument, but for the life of me I can't figure out what you're looking at. Atmospheric CO2 and global temperature follow eachother extremely closely in this plot.

Regardless, even if they didn't it's because CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. There is a ~800 year delay between the start of a warming period and an atmospheric CO2 increase, at which point the CO2 amplifies the warming.

Particularly considering the fact that we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I have no idea what you're arguing here. It's a basic scientific fact that CO2 can and does cause warming.

Answer 3

CO2 can act in two ways. It can cause warming through the greenhouse effect. And it is a result of warming as it is released from warming ocean waters. TWO WAYS.

This is very basic science, undisputed by any "skeptical" scientist.

Past warmings were driven mostly by the Sun. So temperature started going up, and CO2 followed after a lag of hundreds of years, as it was released from warming oceans. When solar radiation decreased, there was another lag for natural sinks to absorb excess CO2.

This time THERE IS NO LAG. CO2 and temperature are going up simultaneously, because CO2 is mostly causing the temperature increase. By the way, solar radiation is decreasing.

This is actually one of many proofs that this particular warming is not natural. Much more here:

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

Great site for more info on global warming:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 4

CO2 isn't the cause of global warming, it may play a part in trapping heat in our atmosphere but it is not generating the heat in the atmosphere, we are on the planet's surface.

Surface Temperature Monitoring information isn't representing the reality of what we are doing in development.

The entire building industry from foresty harvesting, education, design, research, energy programs, emission calculation, etc is completed in a calculator and signed off as compliant. We can design in a calculator to many decimal points, the problem is the inputted information has to be accurate.

Due to the fact of buildings, development missing critical data in their calculators, misinformation is contributed to to the climate change argument. It is impossible to develop effective policy without the required science.

At the end, the UN and all the government scientists debate and develop strategies. Because the science in buildings was missing, we had to find a cause of global elevated temperature and CO2 got into the discussion. I can't qualify what CO2 does in the atmosphere in trapping heat, I do know we are generating temperatures on the surface of the planet close to boiling temperature.

There is a misconception that buildings absorb the sun's energy. Part of the sun's rays are fast moving wavelengths like UV. It burns our skin and is in effect burning solar exposed building exteriors.

Surface Temperature Monitors may argue their opinion but their science is a poorly placed thermostat. Meteorologist may argue building function, it isn't their area of expertise and they aren't qualified.

I am going to show you what is really going on on the surface of the planet. You will see building exteriors close to boiling temperature with the heat generated. The reason it isn't addressed is because we couldn't see it in our calculations.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see what has been missing. Let's throw the CO2 contribution aside and think of this.

Buildings are generating extreme heat that is conducting inside the building and radiating atmospherically. They aren't designed or insured for the temperatures. We are treating the indoor heat with air conditioning(refrigeration) that depletes the ozone allowing more UV. The electrical waste is outrageous. California got knocked off the grid treating symptoms and producing massive GHG emissions while discussing internationally how to reduce emissions and not lose jobs. California isn't even discussing the heat their buildings are generating and more with each new building. They are reacting to the symptoms with wildfires, droughts or weather changes.

EVERY building is doing this and the heat radiated atmospherically is all day as well as all year. I watch the meteorological channels and see air movement over states, provinces or cities. Massive heatdumps all over the world mean...global warming.

Answer 5

I am about to blow your mind, dude. You ready? Ok, here goes:

CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Yes, as strange as it may seem, there are actually other things that can force Earth's temperature up and down, like changes in albedo, the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface, and changes in other greenhouse gases.

Thus it is perfectly possible for Earth's temperature to go up and down completely independently of carbon dioxide levels. This does not contradict the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Answer 6

The data clearly shows that interglacial periods happen very fast and only last about ten thousand years, regardless of what atmospheric concentrations happen to be.