Why isn't CO2 lagging hundreds of years behind warming this time, as it did in the past.?

Question

People here continually post that CO2 lags behind temperature, and claim that this proves is an effect rather than a cause. Data shows that was true in previous warmings, but not this time.

So why isn't CO2 lagging hundreds of years behind temperature this time?

Previous warmings were most likely started by the Sun. CO2 followed hundreds of years later, as it was released by warming ocean waters. That process requires that deep ocean waters circulate to the surface. It CAN'T happen fast.

So why no lag this time?

Answer 1

Surface temps, wind, water, life cycle/longevity of atmospheric CO2-vs-man made, in relationship with CO2 sinks. Some ocean currents have changed during certain time frames. Latent heat/blackbody concept, geographical areas, pre and post industrial emissions . Temporal effect of the R squared principle on gases, not all ice reflects light in the same way, precession. I know I'm missing a few hundred more like the tropics RH factor, solar flaring...etc. Some have been resolved others are still under dispute. I guess the real question may be the debate of a convenient explanation vs natural occurrence or the implication of both in conjunction.

ed: of course there's always the filtering mechanism/photosynthesis, and sequestration but that's mostly natural.

Answer 2

the people have started to preserve the nature.

Answer 3

Bob, I agree with one respondent that you might want to include a link or two that provides background on the question you're asking.  I've seen the answer in my research, but I've apparently been dodging this particular issue, and as people on both sides of the fence on this issue become more aware I'm seeing variations of this question cropping up more frequently.

I'm going to have to dive back into my list of sites to provide an appropriate response.  Not to your question, most likely, but to the next.  For me, I had to go back to the basics and read up on atmosphere.  I started this process by reading "Introduction to Air in California," and I learned an incredible amount and highlighted half the book!

But doing this enabled me to have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and their individual peculiarities. It enabled me to understand why CO2 gets the lions share of the attention, and not black carbon, as at least one person in this section has mentioned.

Even if you say something well in this section, people can gloss over it.  But no one who has answered your question so far has come close to nailing the answer, and it really isn't a hard one.  It's just hard to express it well, so it gets the point across.

Answer 4

The skeptics here don't seem to realize that a global temperature increase doesn't just magically cause CO2 to increase 800 years later.  I've explained this to Larry in the past, but he seems not to have understood it, as he continues to make this claim.

Sure, there was a warming period about 1,000 years ago.  Between now and then, there was also a little ice age.  As I said, there is no magic mechanism which makes CO2 increase 800 years after a warming event.  It requires 800 years of consistently increasing temperatures to warm the oceans to a sufficient temperature at which they'll begin to emit more CO2 than they absorb.  If you have a cooling period, that's obviously not going to happen!

This is another very basic physical argument which the skeptics don't seem to comprehend.  It really bugs me that they don't understand these basic physical arguments and yet they're convinced that they know something the experts don't.  Learn the basics first, then maybe you can think about challenging the experts.

This other argument that 'correlation does not equal causation' is bogus in this case too, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Again it's a simple and well-know physical process that an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 will trap more heat and cause the planet to warm.  There's your causation, and the answer to your question, Bob - there's no lag now because this time CO2 is initiating the warming rather than acting as a feedback.

Answer 5

There was a warming event that peaked 800 years ago.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/descr...

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.h...

Answer 6

You accept the premise past warming events were caused by the sun...you accept CO2 levels were at their peak long after temperatures began to fall in past warming events, yet you insist on continuing to believe CO2 is a major contributor to temperature change.  There is no logical argument capable of penetrating such blinding faith.  It's obvious CO2 levels have risen due to man's actions.  It's equally obvious CO2 has little to no effect on climate...you've proven this yourself.  CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's plant food.  It should go without saying, yet I feel I must:  Today's record temperatures coincide with record solar activity, just as it has in the past.

Edit:  "But measurements of the Sun show that it can't be causing the present warming."  No, measurements of the sun indicate man can't explain the correlation.  The correlation can't be explained away by being unable to discover its source.

Answer 7

You're right Bob.  Unfortunately I think Al Gore is responsible for muddying up the waters a bit on this issue.  He should have explained how increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be both a cause, and and effect, of global warming. This seems to have confused a lot of people, especially the people in this forum who are not known for their logic.   It's clearly a nonlinear feedback: warming causes lower solubility of CO2 in seawater, which releases more CO2, which then causes more warming. It doesn't matter which one you start with, warming or increased CO2,  they are intertwined.

Answer 8

Because there are 6.5 billion people this time that contribute, some more than others, to carbon emissions.

Answer 9

I agree with Wished I Could.  The whole Global Warming scheme is to get more taxes from the people and money in a few select people's pockets.  IF we get a carbon tax intiated, people are going to be poorer.  People Like Al Gore will be able to build bigger mansions too.

Answer 10

There is no reason ( except for political ) to suspect Co2 for most of the warming over the last 150 years . Then... to make the argument that most of the warming has come from "man made" Co2 ignores everything we know about past warming and Co2 . It has never been a major temperature driver , and for your belief to stand up, you have to say that Co2 can magically transform itself into some sort of super gas. Especially if you are putting the blame on "man made" Co2. That is just not the nature of Co2 . It has never driven temps in the past , what makes you think that is any different today ? Co2 only shows itself  to work as a negative feedback . There are other forces to reign it in , it doesn't get out of control. Co2 as a GHG only reacts to the energy that is put into the system and that energy comes from the sun . Cause and Effect for the last Billion years or so . ALL warming is started by the sun .

Answer 11

Larry gave you the correct answer, but you want to block out the MWP, since it doesn't fit your belief system.

Answer 12

Correlation does not show cause and effect - Limitations on what is knowable

The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have also gone up means nothing.  It is a correlation only in the sense that both variables are headed in the same direction. The odds of this being the case are 50% A similar correlation exists between CO2 and breast cancer. There is no cyclic variable in the global warming studies. (If we include proxy measurements, ice core samples - they have CO2 lagging temperature not leading) If CO2 had gone up and down 4 times and ground temperature had followed - that could be interesting, but would only start to mean something after 10 to 100 cycles. If CO2 had gone up and down several times and global temperatures had followed there would be a meaningful correlation, yet that would still fail to show cause and effect- (they both could be caused by a third factor

Answer 13

The atmospheres contain a vast array of mechanisms to ensure a relative peace between competing forces.  During a severe outbreak of tornadic activity,  usually cloud tops will penetrate through the tropopause.   That cold air will act as a lifting mechanism and amplify the effects of that bad weather.  In fact,  when clouds tops of CBs get within 5,000 feet of that layer,  the storm is considered severe and tornadoes are usually forecast.

The tropopause acts as a kind of barrier and transition zone between the different atmospheres and are pretty much regulate the processes within them.

This is what these pseudo-scientists have no inkling of.

Answer 14

did you SEE CO2 overtake temperature