Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

[donsutherland1]

From Science:

 

Understanding the role of atmospheric CO₂ during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO₂ concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO₂, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

[blizzard1024]

From Science:

 

Understanding the role of atmospheric CO₂ during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO₂ concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO₂, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

what stinks about this is that you have to buy the article. It is no doubt ground breaking since all other studies show a lag between CO2 and temperature with CO2 following temperatures. Would like to see what they did. The fact the CO2 and temperature are so closely correlated in the ice cores makes me skeptical that CO2 drives climate in the sense that there are so many more variables related to climate. It is hard to imagine CO2 is the only driver of the climate as these ice cores might suggest. That makes me think it is the other way around...CO2 level is modulated by global ocean temperatures. 

[skierinvermont]

what stinks about this is that you have to buy the article. It is no doubt ground breaking since all other studies show a lag between CO2 and temperature with CO2 following temperatures. Would like to see what they did. The fact the CO2 and temperature are so closely correlated in the ice cores makes me skeptical that CO2 drives climate in the sense that there are so many more variables related to climate. It is hard to imagine CO2 is the only driver of the climate as these ice cores might suggest. That makes me think it is the other way around...CO2 level is modulated by global ocean temperatures. 

 

This is not a logical argument. This is an ideologically driven assumption. You have provided zero logical reasoning. All you've said is you can't believe CO2 drives it. This is an assumption, not an argument. 

 

 

Also as has been pointed out several dozen times to you at this point, by several posters, CO2 is not the "driver" of past glacials. It is one of several positive feedbacks. The forcing from CO2 alone doesn't come close to explaining the 5C+ changes in global temperature without the assistance of other positive feedbacks and the initial changes in orbital parameters. 

[FloridaJohn]

There is a pretty good summary of the article here:

 

Ice age chicken and egg: Did warming or carbon dioxide rise come first?

 

 

[blizzard1024]

This is not a logical argument. This is an ideologically driven assumption. You have provided zero logical reasoning. All you've said is you can't believe CO2 drives it. This is an assumption, not an argument. 

 

 

Also as has been pointed out several dozen times to you at this point, by several posters, CO2 is not the "driver" of past glacials. It is one of several positive feedbacks. The forcing from CO2 alone doesn't come close to explaining the 5C+ changes in global temperature without the assistance of other positive feedbacks and the initial changes in orbital parameters. 

if you had any understanding of the complexity of the atmosphere and climate system you would understand my reasoning. The fact the CO2 so closely follows temperature is a red flag that

it is the oceans solubility that drives CO2 content in the atmosphere along with some biosphere effects. Only if CO2 drove the climate system it would  match the temperature so closely. and we know it doesnt...so it passively follows temperature based on ice core data. 

[skierinvermont]

if you had any understanding of the complexity of the atmosphere and climate system you would understand my reasoning. The fact the CO2 so closely follows temperature is a red flag that

it is the oceans solubility that drives CO2 content in the atmosphere along with some biosphere effects. Only if CO2 drove the climate system it would  match the temperature so closely. and we know it doesnt...so it passively follows temperature based on ice core data. 

 

More ideologically driven assumptions. Zero arguments or reasoning or facts. 

[grambo]

blizzard1024

 

As a complete amateur & observer here on this site I must agree with skierinvermont that there is no sound argument coming from you. Red flags, skepticism and things being "hard to imagine" aren't anything but subjective reasoning and really don't say much. I don't follow this statement:

 

"Only if CO2 drove the climate system it would  match the temperature so closely. and we know it doesnt...so it passively follows temperature based on ice core data."  

 

That's a big assumption and I don't see how it is a logical statement without a proof. I'll admit that I don't have any understand of the atmosphere and climate system that you probably have, but where is the argument? 

 

The study's data suggests "synchronous change," not that one thing drives the other.

[skierinvermont]

From Science:

 

Understanding the role of atmospheric CO₂ during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO₂ concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO₂, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

 

Come to think of it, why would there ever have been any doubt that they were synchronous? The fact that gases become less soluble in the ocean at higher temperatures is a principle of chemistry. As soon as it warmed, CO2 should have begun to rise. Of course it's always good when the data matches theory, but whether the phasing was synchronous or asynchronous really has nothing to do with AGW. All it demonstrates is the fact that gases are less soluble at higher temperatures. 

 

The synchronous phasing doesn't even prove that CO2 enhanced the warming. The fact that CO2 enhanced the warming is a conclusion based on 1) the fact that CO2 is a GHG and/or 2) process of elimination (the temperature swings of the glaciations could only occur with enhancement from CO2)

 

 

The synchronous or asynchronous phasing doesn't really have anything to do with AGW as far as I can tell. All it demonstrates is a well known principle of chemistry (gases become less soluble at higher temperatures). 

[WeatherRusty]

if you had any understanding of the complexity of the atmosphere and climate system you would understand my reasoning. The fact the CO2 so closely follows temperature is a red flag that

it is the oceans solubility that drives CO2 content in the atmosphere along with some biosphere effects. Only if CO2 drove the climate system it would  match the temperature so closely. and we know it doesnt...so it passively follows temperature based on ice core data. 

 

CO2 has not "driven" the glacial cycle. From where on Earth would a supposed regular pulsing influx of CO2 come from? No one claims CO2 was the driver of all climate change in the past. Why are you arguing that we are saying that it has?

 

Your bolded statement is true, however that is not what is occuring at the present time, the increase above 280ppm is due almost entirely to fossil fuel usage as a fuel.