Bishop Hill On entering the climate arena
Jun 16, 2014 Climate: Sceptics This is a guest post by "Lone Wolf", who is an academic at a UK university.
A few years ago, I was looking for something for a final year student project/dissertation where the student did some statistical modelling type work on a large dataset. I came across the CDIAC data for the Vostok Ice Core. I looked at it myself first, and decided there was enough there for the student to get their teeth into.
During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a 'seasonality'. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.
Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.
Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.
These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies. You must remember that I am not a climatologist or bona fide weather expert, and approached this topic from a purely statistical point of view. I mentioned that according to the proxy record the temperature was considerably lower that it has been and that it is decreasing. I then proceeded to comment on the lag between temperature and carbon dioxide and explained that it seemed 'incorrect' to blame temperature rises on CO2 when clearly the CO2 rises lag temperature increases, also noting that you can't really develop a mathematical time-dependent model that allows CO2 to force temperature rise, when the temperature has stopped rising up to 1000 years prior to the CO2 rising. There must be something 'missing' that we don't understand.
During the question time that followed my talk, I was strongly criticised, with audience members suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about. Afterwards, one audience member told me that I had actually insulted a 'scientific religion' and that I should expect further criticism. The following day, I had several polite emails pointing out what were claimed to be the errors in my work (but which actually had nothing to do with it).
Several months afterwards, the society's ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.
"Disheartening" isn’t the term I would use, and I seriously considered giving up on the entire idea of academia, and getting a nice little 9-5 job. But, I am still here, still working on the problem, still uncovering, lets call them ‘anomalies’, in many areas, which the scientists involved have no clue how to explain, but about which they will hear no view other than their own.
I was told by a teacher of mine that science describes what is going on in the world, and that if a theory doesn't explain what we observe, then that theory is wrong. It is interesting to note that no one on the IPCC has any credible explanation for the 'pause' as they call it. We currently have no confirmed mechanisms for many climate phenomena, such as El Nino, the NAO, the Madden Julian Oscillation etc and of the 'pause'. Yes, we know what they are, but we have little or no idea how or why.
It baffles me how scientists can hold such faith in a model that disagrees so much with the actual phenomena it is supposed to be representing.
Reader Comments (108)
Readers may like to know that I had Lone Wolf's story initially from someone who attended the talk in question. All the salient details have therefore been independently verified.
i agree with Rob Burton, to me Mosher also comes across as a very unpleasant and arrogant person, with his condescending and obscure comments.
i disagree with the "smart guy" part though, because he misses the obvious problem that objective people have with this story and he instead focuses on the CO2 lags temperature issue. That is not the issue here. The issue is the reaction that follows when an outsider presents conclusions that undermine the very foundation of the CAGW scare. It is so very telling of the religious nature of this whole thing.
@Richard Drake 7:01 PM
Richard, I, for one, certainly wouldn’t suggest Lone Wolf is telling porkies. Without some kind of checkable reference though, it leaves the door wide open for people such as La Buena, in the comment immediately preceding yours, to claim exactly that.
No. It doesn’t. Not when it’s done from behind a wall of anonymity. And the issues it raises have been discussed on many, many occasions on this very blog. It’s one thing to wish to remain anonymous when giving one’s opinion on a given subject, as many of the commenter’s here do. I have no problem with that and understand the many reasons why people might do so, but it’s entirely another matter when it comes to using that anonymity to make unverifiable accusations, as in this case. I’m growing increasingly tired of the old “I’m frightened of hurting my career” excuse. My view now is that they either man up, or they slink off back to their hidey hole. All that blog posts like this do is cause food fights and prolong the climate wars. Until people start naming and shaming, nothing will ever be done about it.
I am assuming that "La Buena" is Chandra returned to irritate everyone again and have therefore removed the comments and responses.
Thanks, Your Worship. Such 'contributors' actually contribute nothing except for an increase to genuine contributor's general levels of irritation.
And please, Mosh - if you act like a smart-arse, don't be surprised if people assume that is what you are.
It is quite conceivable that the person who warned Lone Wolf that he was insulting a scientific religion was also a sceptic offering a piece of friendly advice. Whatever we may say I can't see any committed warmist using the phrase. On the other hand "a word to the wise" and a warning of what is likely to follow seems quite plausible to me.
..."Disheartening" isn’t the term I would use, and I seriously considered giving up on the entire idea of academia, and getting a nice little 9-5 job...
You'd better. You now have no future in academia.
When the bubble bursts, as it inevitably will, people will attack you with unremitting fervour, for being right when they were wrong. I would get out while you still have the chance....
Jun 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand
That was just flattery and being polite.... which I really am to polite people. I'm pretty sure all my old Reading meteorologist friends would think I'm polite still, even if I am now 'The Enemy'. I really am the same person I always was... even somewhat leftie as this site isn't supposed to be.
@It baffles me how scientists can hold such faith in a model ....
The answer is quite simple: parasitic careerism.
Statistician Lone Wolf will be interested in Steve McIntyre's analysis of a Climate Science mangling of multivariate statistics: data-snooping, over-fitting etc. etc:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/06/15/abram-et-al-2014-and-the-southern-annual-mode/
Regarding this work, McIntyre comments:
"The statistical reference of Abram et al was designed for a different problem. Their calculations of significance are done incorrectly. Neither their network of tree ring chronologies nor their multivariate method is suitable for their task … Abram et al is about as far from a satisfactory analysis of such proxies as one can imagine."
It is very disheartening that so many workers in this field continue publishing mistaken and/or misleading statistical analyses. They don't seem to learn from their mistakes: indeed, for the most part they don't seem to realize that they are mistaken.
Unlike some, I think the majority of this work is done in good faith. Basic technical competence, however, is often lacking. And the details of how they get the statistics wrong are over the heads of most people. And the reflexive, tribal defense of "The Cause," as Lone Wolf discovered, makes fixing things a lot harder.
But the technical details matter. Pointing out mistakes matters. Science does (eventually) self-correct, but only if other workers point out what needs to be corrected.
Peter D. Tillman
Professional geologist, advanced-amateur paleoclimatologist
Laurie Childs:
And, in a nice symmetry, in the comment immediately following yours, the Bish explains that he's removed all comments by and responses to La Buena. :) I'm very glad to hear you take a strong line about people misusing anonymity.
Steven Mosher says:
"Any one who thinks he has found something by identifying a lag in C02, needs to remember these two words:
Primary research.
yes, C02 lags. it also causes warming.
yes, c02 lags, as predicted by Hansen."
Since you know all the answers Steven, could you tell me why the lag is much larger during cooling phases than during warming? I haven't been able to find any comment on this in the literatutr, though it is obvious in the ice core data.
Alexander K, tty
Anyone who regularly reads the comments at WUWT knows that Steve Mosher is a drive-by troll, perhaps better versed in the science and techniques but a drive-by troll none the less. Therefore any comments on what he has posted are waste of effort and the time could be better spent watching paint dry.
SandyS, tty et al:
We had a useful debate about Mosher way back in October 2012 where johanna said to me:
I have the same view I had then. If someone regularly helps us pick up errors they've got to be good. A cryptic Mosh is better than no Mosh at all. But you can read the other views there. What's perhaps more interesting is why major blog hosts don't treat him as a troll. After all, Laurie Childs, Paul Matthews, Martyn and others seemed to go astray yesterday by assuming Bishop Hill was an idiot - that he had put up this very important thread without any fact-checking. Mosh is tolerated and appreciated (depending, I admit, on the current level of cryptography) for a reason.
This is the clearest example of how global warming is about politics. Be it main stream or academic. The only way to dissolve this idiotic political stance is to fight fire with fire. The only thing a politician worries about is if he can get elected or get more more money if an academic. Therefore we must focus on the folly of the economic model that created this hysteria.
Focus on the costs to the consumer/economy and show how the poor or developing countries are disadvantaged by the green policies (not necessarily conservation policies).
Show how Africans are kept poor, how poor/old people are kept cold.
Show how big oil IS big green. Describe how the STOR subsidies are being given to foreign investors.
Show how the money spent on wind farms would be better invested in nuclear.
Just forget arguing about science and demonstrate that Stern is as irrational as Tony B liar
Nobody was saying or even implying that Bish was an idiot!
For those looking for data, I am not sure where the Vostok data is, but the NOAA GISP data shows much the same 'seasonality'. Here are my links:
climate context and history -
GISP2 ice core proxy Alley/Lappi graph with Hadcut4 gl appended - http://snag.gy/tJ7z6.jpg
(source data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html
Vosktok graph: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png
Close correlation between GISP and Vostok ice core data proxies (Modified from Bender, et al., Nature, 1994): http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Bender.html
If a scientific paper presented at a conference can be "disappeared" can we have any confidence that the same thing does not happen to inconvenient data?
I have never understood the logic of the standard explanation of the fact that CO2 in the record rises after temperature rises. Anyone saying this on for instance the Guardian Environment pages comes in for a chorus of abuse. The argument seems to be that there was a small rise in CO2 - perhaps it was too small to be measured. This in turn led to the rise in temperature. This rise in temperature, after a delay of some sort, led to a rise in water vapour. This then led to a further real rise in temperature which prompted more CO2 release. It was this rise in CO2 that then became in some sense the real driver, and which prompted more water vapour and more CO2 releases.
If this is right, and I would really welcome someone who understands correcting it if it is not, then the initial CO2 rise, which occurs from unknown causes, is the real driver of the warming.
This does not make any sense to me. The tiny warming that is supposed to be caused by the tiny unexplained rise in CO2 could come from anything. If this is right, any warming from any cause should lead to rises in CO2 and water vapour and lead to exactly the same result. Also I don't understand how the tiny rise in CO2 in the first place has the effects the explanation seems to require.
Does anyone else understand this? Have I got the account totally wrong?
Paul: I wrote in a little bit of haste and have only a moment now. I'll come back to it. Meanwhile, the quiz question is who else has been called 'lone wolf', as recorded on Bishop Hill in the last three years? The link has the answer but I didn't remember.
CO2 lagging warming in the pre-anthropogenic era does not contradict the CAGW theory. As oceans warm CO2 is released and oceans would warm very slowly because of their large mass hence a significant lag. Just because a car with its brakes off and an empty fuel tank can accelerate down a hill doesn't mean it hasn't got an engine. However it does show that temperature can rise without the help of CO2 and that CO2 can continue to be outgassed by the ocean after surface temperature has stopped rising. So there maybe there is a mechanism for heat to continue to enter the ocean after surface warming stops, and that can have effect for 1000 years. So 17 years into a hiatus what will the surface temperature be in 3014? Maybe Trenberth is right and heat is hiding in the ocean, maybe like it always has. Maybe the biosphere then uses that heat as part of a millenial scale cycle, and captures CO2 at the same time. That's enough prognostication for today.
‘During the question time that followed my talk, I was strongly criticised…’
In the vernacular, this is known as ‘feedback’. Some feedback is positive, some is negative. Sometimes there is no feedback at all.
At other times, people’s most valuable contributions are ignored. And this happens all the time, everywhere.
Fortunately, at least some instances of negative or even missing feedback are being collected to enable future generations to marvel over the oppression suffered by some brave souls in the early 20th century. That was a time when some people were actually criticised, while others were blatantly ignored.
Oh, the inhumanity.
Son of mulder
Most past examples of gradual climate change, such as glacial cycles, involve a change in temperature, followed by a change in CO2. The CO2 the acts as an amplifier, producing a greater temperature change. This continues until equilibrium is reached.
The problem in discussions such as this is an inability to accept that temperature driven CO2 change is not the only possible mechanism. A rise in CO2 from another source, such as a comet impact, vulcanism or fossil fuel burning, will also trigger the temperature/CO2 feedback cycle.
Back on the subject ....... don't forget what happened to David Bellamy at the BBC for not going along with 'Company Policy'
Richard Drake,
I’m genuinely surprised that you managed to so misconstrue what I and others were saying in our comments yesterday. I never doubted for one moment that the Bish would have carried out some basic fact-checking before allowing the item to be posted, but it was never about the Bish anyway. Let’s assume that, after reading the story here, I’d gone on twitter complaining about the treatment Lone Wolf had received. The very first response I’d have gotten from the usual suspects would have been “Who?” “When?” “Where?” I wouldn’t have been able to answer any of those questions. So the next question would have been “So how do you know it’s true?” What do you think the response would have been when I replied “Bishop Hill has verified it”? The issue isn’t about whether the story is true or not and whether the Bish has satisfied himself it’s true or not, it’s about how we can prove it’s true to those that would deny it and to those that would listen to them. It only becomes a “very important thread” when it can be shown to be true not just to the Bish, but to everyone. Till then it’s only a story.
EM
No, the real problem is the assumption that CO2 must be involved in the first place when the Arctic ice core data, most geological CO2 vs temperature data and stomatal results all refute the notion of CO2->temperature amplification. The ongoing inability to even mention the more important, well-known (and published) albedo polar amplifier or the postulated AMO amplifier that may explain the Younger Dryas plus the utter unwillingness to discuss the cooling phases where CO2 cannot possibly act as an amplifier and hence cannot be a temperature driver without the involvement of magical temperature-leading carbon sinks are further issues.
The discovery of the lag just pointed out that CO2 is probably not the main driver but the other considerations bury the notion. Popular alarmist conception comes from just what Lovelock said - that everyone was so dazzled by the simplistic linear CO2-temperature correlation in Petits original ice-cores of the Antarctic that they prematurely decided it meant that CO2 was the driver of global temperature, when in reality all it shows is temperature controlling CO2 levels in the Antarctic - exactly as we'd expect. Yet the consequent hysterical meme that fossil fuels might cause runaway temperatures is just so compelling (and lucrative) that they can't seem to let logic back into their thought process.
I have recently had a discussion with an Antactic ice-core 'expert' who opined that he was continually amazed when skeptics pointed out the sudden shifts in climate of the past because to him it meant it was very dangerous for man to experiment with nature by adding CO2. I replied that his innate apocalyptic thinking had just failed to notice the obvious (as skeptics do) that if nature can cause abrupt temperature shifts all by itself then there was therefore nothing at all unusual about postulating that the current steady rise of 0.6K/century is likely entirely natural. The main difference here is the perspective you start out with; anti-industry versus pro-industry or pessimistic versus optimistic if you prefer.
That LW anecdote is true, does not change it from being an anecdote about the nature the scientific discourse on the topic of climate change. What seems to me to be needed is a real inquiry by a learned society or a university on the issue. This will need championing by academics with significant status and political weight. I will not be holding my breath, since too many of those with the requisite political weight have seemingly bought into the dominant explanatory paradigm. I am afraid we will have to wait until the weight of the observational evidence is simply too overwhelming to be ignored - one way or the other.
What makes the current CAGW dynamics so problematic for me is (a) the widespread, all encompassing nature of its impact on academics and academic discourse and (b) the magnitude and scope of the day-to-day implications for the general pubic primarily through the adoption of dysfunctional energy policies.
Can anyone recommend a good book on the nature and impact of Lysenko on Soviet Science?
I'm not sure that the LW anecdote tells us very much other than the noise in the echo chamber. Results were presented at a conference, there was vigorous discussion and criticism, several polite emails followed that furthered the discussion (we're not told if LW engaged here) and a subsequent newsletter in which a summary wasn't given of LW's presentation. The first two items on the list are pretty normal for many conferences and meetings I've been to. People get animated, excited and occasionally agressive. The third doesn't imply institutional censorship. It is more than lilkely that the newsletter article was written by one of the conference organisers.
There is nothing stopping LW and his student publishing their findings in some form. For example the papaer could be written up and deposited on Figshare, Arxiv or similar repository where it will be recognised with a DOI number and be available for anyone to read.
The point concerning models, pauses etc. doesn't necessarily follow from the debate concerning the timing of temperature and CO2 rise which is essentially based on evidence drawn from ice age terminations where the immediate rise in temperature represented by the stable oxygen and hydrogen isotope composition of the ice occurs before the rise in CO2 as recorded in gas bubbles occluded in the ice.
As for the statement....."also noting that you can't really develop a mathematical time-dependent model that allows CO2 to force temperature rise, when the temperature has stopped rising up to 1000 years prior to the CO2 rising." This is simply wrong. There are no ice core records, and certainly not Vostok where the temperature has stopped rising prior to the rise in CO2.
I am assuming that LW is trying to protect his identity and possibly that of his student. However, as Laurie Childs points out until the events can be verified by everyone then it remains a story and not a particularly significant one at that.
Laurie Childs et al: My position is that the Bish was right to fact-check this story and, having done so, to publish it with a pseudonym. I would go so far as to say it would have been idiotic not to. I don't agree with Paul Dennis that it isn't particularly significant - it was definitely worth publishing on BH, in my view. It led to a couple of responses I really appreciated - from Alan Kennedy and Jeff Id (and that's just from memory).
The host asked us not to discuss the Vostok issues themselves but didn't snip Mosh and others when they disregarded this. I'd prefer more radical snipping to enforce topicality as defined by the host but I realise it's one heck of a lot of work when it's not the day job - especially when whole discussion threads are devoted to questioning just one such decision. (And note that was another situation where Anthony Watts was also meant to have got it all wrong, as I assume some feel again in this case.)
I'm sure you'll let me know if you think I've not been consistent or fair but that's my position. I think it's an important story and a valuable moment for BH and WUWT to reflect on how the consensus manages to obliterate all traces of dissent - or almost all. Thank goodness for researchers like Dennis who buck that trend.
James G
"the Arctic ice core data, most geological CO2 vs temperature data and stomatal results all refute the notion of CO2->temperature amplification. ".
Remember that CO2->temperature is an unusual situation, impact, volcanic, snowball earth recocery or AGW. Looking in most paleo data you,ll see temperature->CO2., but that does not preclude the alternative.
"unwillingness to discuss the cooling phases where CO2 cannot possibly act as an amplifier and hence cannot be a temperature driver without the involvement of magical temperature-leading carbon sinks are further issues."
Amplification works not ways. During an orbital eccentricity driven cooling period ocean and tundra become expanding carbon sinks. As the cooling continues, reducing atmospheric CO2 allows further cooling. The temperature/CO2 feedback slows, but soes not stop, the cooling.
"if nature can cause abrupt temperature shifts all by itself then there was therefore nothing at all unusual about postulating that the current steady rise of 0.6K/century is likely entirely natural. "
Nature does not act "all by itself". It follows cause and effect. It also follows conservation of energy laws. If you want to postulate a natural cause for 20th century warming , feel free, but for the idea to gain traction you need to show a mechanism and an energy budget. No one has, so far.
Now as a senior statistician directing the work of students, "Lone Wolf" has an interesting opportunity for any upcoming conference.
Again, get the data set and specify the statistical techniques to apply. WARN the student that "physically" the consensus of current work regards certain results as a "spurious correlation". Assign the student to find all the spurious correlations. Work up a poster and a background paper showing all the "spurious" results. Then invite the physicists et al to review the work and demonstrate what "phyiscal" property has created the spuriousity.
We know this is "wrong", but we don't know why, and we're asking for your help...
Seems to me the review could work up to higher and higher levels of embarrassment among the non-statisticians. See "VS" and the "unit root" controversy a few years back...
Entropic Man said "If you want to postulate a natural cause for 20th century warming , feel free, but for the idea to gain traction you need to show a mechanism and an energy budget."
That is true, but only in the topsy-turvy world of climate science. In other sciences the proposition that the warming was a consequence of human activity would need to be justified to gain "traction".
So what happened is an academic from a different field finds something that's been known for a long time in climatology (that CO2 lags temperature in the glacial cycles), misinterprets it (as if that means that CO2 can't cause temperature to change, see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/), and feels wronged for this being pointed out to him. Sheesh.
Skeptical Chymist:
Where "traction" obviously means splashing out a trillion or so reorganising the world's economy. Oh no, silly me, that doesn't apply in other sciences. So we don't need the same levels of justification in the climate case. It really is that barmy. But I'm off topic now and will take a snip like a man, as always.
If Lone Wolf has a real story to tell why won't he/she use their name?
It's a shame that our lupine friend isn't a climate scientist. They might have been aware of the elementary fact that C02 is both a feedback and a forcing. This is kindergarten stuff... Being rejected for bad science shows the strength of a scientific community. It does not reveal any conspiracy to conceal the truth.
Anyone can argue against any part of the climate orthodoxy but you must do so at the same level as the arguments made in support of the idea which you wish to criticise - namely a formal, technical argument with no obvious flaws which is good enough to get published in a reputable journal. That is how science works. The rules are the same for everyone. It is not reasonable to make any sort of claims about matters of science which do not meet this basic standard.
"Readers may like to know that I had Lone Wolf's story initially from someone who attended the talk in question. All the salient details have therefore been independently verified."
You are presenting anecdotal evidence as verified fact. None of the details have been "verified" unless you can produce the conference, date, and Lone Wolf's identity.
CO2 and temperature are in a feedback loop. The loop can go both ways, and does. This is basic science anyone speaking on the subject should know.
P.S.: Why would an academic, who spoke at a conference using (presumably) his real name, use a fake name here?
David Appell asks: "Why would an academic, who spoke at a conference using (presumably) his real name, use a fake name here?"
As Paul Dennis pointed out, it could be to protect his student, rather than himself. That becomes necessary because potential employers might see a difference between presenting a dissenting opinion at a scientific conference and one's boss posting about it on what is viewed by many as a "denier" blog. It's called guilt by association.
Skeptical Chymist: The reciprocal of posting anonymously is that you're taken much less seriously. If you don't have the guts to take your work seriously and stand proudly behind your own words, why should anyone else?
David Appell,
Why does andthentheresphysics post under a "fake name"?
David Appell - some academics/people have research funding applications to secure, and/or mortgages to pay, and children to feed. Others just don't like giving their real names on the interweb, because there are nutters out there. I think Jonathan Jones can speak with some authority on this issue, from the academic perspective at least:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/23/the-beddington-challenge.html?currentPage=2
It is interesting to note all the comments of "follow the money," and "it creates jobs," obviously academia jobs, that is. If it wasn't for the fact that the Dr. Spock style raising of children and the current sissifying of them, hadn't created self centered, thin skinned people, you would expect that they would opt for "research" that actually "creates jobs" for humanity as a whole instead of just carving out their own little niche with total disregard to the harm they are doing in the process. But that requires ethics and morals and those were disregarded, for the most part, about 50 years ago. Guess I can't blame them for what they do after all.
lapogus,
I do find it amusing (if depressing) that after the constant bleating about persecution by many climate scientists the first response of Phil Jones to my (entirely legal and proper) FOI request was to launch an incompetent conspiracy to get me fired.
Fortunately his grasp of Oxford University employment regulations was about as good as his grasp of Excel, and his plan of course came to nothing. However I am still waiting for an apology from him or any other of the principals involved. (For the record I did receive a half hearted apology for some minor details of UEA's mishandling of this matter from the University Administration, and I seem to recall that Tim Osborn said something reasonable in a personal capacity.)
Jonathon Jones: what did you do with the data when you finally got it? Was anything published as a result of your access?
Richard Drake how long would you say "A few years ago" would be?
I would suggest the older one is the longer "a few years" would be.
If I would guess our academic is around the 60 mark I would guess "a few years ago" to him would be a decade or more. Which begs the question why bother with this story years after the event.
Of course I'm just guessing.
"Jun 17, 2014 at 2:59 PMrBart Verheggen said
So what happened is an academic from a different field finds something that's been known for a long time in climatology (that CO2 lags temperature in the glacial cycles), misinterprets it (as if that means that CO2 can't cause temperature to change,see e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/), and feels wronged for this being pointed out to him. Sheesh."
Unlike Al Gore, in his awful film an Inconvenient Truth, used the graph of the data to 'demonstrate' that CO2 causes temperature rise, whereas the graph actually shows temperature leading CO2 by 800 years.
CO2 wasn't there a warmish alarmist theory telling us to look at Venus ?
The effect of CO2 on Venus is zip nada zilch nothing nix
It's warmer there than on earth because it's closer by the sun
Son of Mulder
leftists do not know the concept of DOUBLE STANDARDS, just like fish do not know what water is.
used the graph of the data to 'demonstrate' that CO2 causes temperature rise, whereas the graph actually shows temperature leading CO2 by 800 years.
Without the positive feedback from CO2, the temperature difference between glacial and interglacial periods would only be about half what it was.
David Appell -
I am not sure where you get this assertion from, and whether you mean forcing or feedback, or how you quantify it. To me the proxy data clearly suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels are just out-gassing from the oceans and that they have a negligible (if any) effect on global average temperatures.
The elephant in the room is H2O, and specifically cloud cover which is the key negative feedback which stops us going into run-away warming every 100-120k years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data2-dome-fuji-lg.gif.
The significance of increased cloud cover (and thereby lower insolence) can be seen in recent decadal data also:
Global cloud anomaly (%), 1983-2012) [compare this with Hadcrut4, 1982-2013 ].
See http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=16 also.
Is it just too obvious for IPPC, Met Office and Royal Society climate scientists that a decrease in global (or at least tropical and mid latitudes) cloud cover will result in higher insolence and thereby warmer surface temperatures?