It is obvious that YOU did not read the source much because it clearly tells us that CO2 LAGS temperature changes and up to 800 years and at the same time fails to explain what that initial WARMING driver is or how they can tell that by magic CO2 took over 800 years later and did the rest of the warming.It is all tortured bullcrap.The only thing they got factually correct was that CO2 takes around 800 years before it starts to follow the temperature that has been going up for that long a time.
CO2 LAGS LAGS and LAGS for many centuries…
Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
But then start making illogical comments that is a contradiction:
This proves that 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.
CO2 does not HEAT the planet since all it does is absorb a small amount of IR and re-radiate it almost instantly in all directions.It slightly slows down the energy flow from the planet to outer space but being such a minimal gas has little effect and swamped by water vapor in the same bandwidth.It is also mostly OUTSIDE of the main IR bandwidth energy outflow to space.
The oceans gets almost all of the energy from the sun itself and very little below and dribble from the atmosphere.IR does not penetrate below the waters surface and the oceans have almost all of the heat content in the system:
CO2 does not warm the ocean waters.
Then goes on to babble for no apparent reason but to fill up the page with off topic gibberish in the feeble attempt to explain away why it took 800 years for CO2 to finally follow the temperature change.
Maybe CO2 had four flat tires and a broken transmission to fix?
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
There is that stupid word “trap” HEAT when what it does is absorb light energy and re-radiate almost immediately and it goes on at the speed of light.Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation!
The notion that it traps is propaganda since it does nothing of the kind.CO2 molecule is not some kind of a molecular cage that you dummies like to pretend.
What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate “forcing”, the correlation will be obscured.
Now the author is really pouring on the rationalizing again trying to minimize the ice data showing the lag to around 800 years.Not only that trying to imply that correlation is not always causation but almost always because otherwise the 800 year has to the exception.
The story seems to be that an unknown warming drive shows up that cause the temperature to go up while CO2 boys lay around for hundreds of years watching Temp boys go climbing up and up finally decide to follow because they do not want to be left behind.
Here is another persons words who also see the obvious problem that eludes you:
This is the type of thing that is getting counted as climate “science.” This my favorite example of misinformation. The simple statement that CO2 could be responsible for 5/6, but not 1/6 is intellectually and scientifically dishonest.
This is a really special piece here. I normally will not take great offense to things, but this one really irked me. The combination of saying that an unknown process (which is a blatant lie) starts the initial warming which is then taken over after 800 years by the CO2 feedback is absurd. There is no basis that the original cause of the warming ends.
Any person looking at a chart of the warming will see that the warming is an uninterrupted event that lasts the entire period, 5,000 years being a reasonable average for the length of the warming. Here is an overlay of the Vostok ice core temperature and the associated CO2 levels.
You are as dumb as the writer at this point.
To show how irrelevant is for any more CO2 to inhabit the atmosphere take a look here and see how little warm forcing it has left:
Then to bring up something you warmist clods do not even begin to consider about how irrelevant CO2 is as a warm forcing that known to cause a small greenhouse effect but does not drive the climate system:
Two selected excerpts:
One important note here is that the energy radiated increases to the 4th power and it is absolute temperature that matters here and not relative temperature change or anomaly. The average temperature of the Earth is ~14 °C which is an absolute temperature of 287.15K. The energy transmission of a blackbody at 287.15 K is 385.5 W/m2. Clearly the Earth does not lose energy at that rate since it receives less than that and this is where the greenhouse effect comes into play. The end of it all is that the Earth’s atmosphere radiates energy to space at a rate of ~198 W/m2 and also some additional energy from the surface. I spend a lot more time on the details of this summary in the book, but in effect the Earth loses most of it’s energy to space from an altitude of ~9.5 km which has a temperature of 243K (or -30 °C).
A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.
If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.
The rate of energy loss quickly outstrips the CO2 warm forcing rate as shown in the chart below:
This last quote from your tortured source is long out of date:
So why has Earth regularly switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods in the past million years? It has long been thought that this is due to variations in Earth’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. These change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. However, the correlation is not perfect and the heating or cooling effect of these orbital variations is small. It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the dramatic temperature switches between ice ages and interglacials.
There have been new information since 2002:
Quote from the link:
And you clearly get a spectacular agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve (cyan) and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes (white). Moreover, this model requires no lag to be adjusted and no significant CO2 forcing to be added if you want to reproduce the data very well. Roe explicitly mentions - even in the abstract - that CO2 is not needed; moreover, it’s changes are lagging so they are (mostly) consequences, rather than causes, of the ice-volume and temperature changes.
After having seen this paper, as far as I can say, the Milankovitch orbital cycles do describe the glaciation cycles in the recent 1 million years very well and nothing else - CO2 or random internal variations - is needed to account for the bulk of the data. Of course, if you drew the “integral” of the functions above, the agreement could be worse - haven’t tried it - but it’s clear that the empirical evidence supporting the Milankovitch link is stunning.
CO2 is a massively overrated GHG.
When will you guys ever catch up?