Replies

I didn't know if this would work or not. But it did. Here's some more figures for discussion of CO2 and climate.

Figure 3.2: Variations in atmospheric CO₂ concentration on different time-scales. (a) Direct measurements of atmospheric CO₂ concentration (Keeling and Whorf, 2000), and O₂ from 1990 onwards (Battle et al., 2000). O₂ concentration is expressed as the change from an arbitrary standard. (b) CO₂ concentration in Antarctic ice cores for the past millenium (Siegenthaler et al., 1988; Neftel et al., 1994; Barnola et al., 1995; Etheridge et al., 1996). Recent atmospheric measurements at Mauna Loa (Keeling and Whorf, 2000) are shown for comparison. (c) CO₂ concentration in the Taylor Dome Antarctic ice core (Indermühle et al., 1999). (d) CO₂ concentration in the Vostok Antarctic ice core (Petit et al., 1999; Fischer et al., 1999). (e) Geochemically inferred CO₂ concentrations, from Pagani et al. (1999a) and Pearson and Palmer (2000). (f) Geochemically inferred CO₂ concentrations: coloured bars represent different published studies cited by Berner (1997). The data from Pearson and Palmer (2000) are shown by a black line. (BP = before present.)

Yes CO2 does vary in response to interglacial warmings, variation in solar irradiation of the earth's surface, and other climate factors as is obvious from the charts.

Strange how that happens when the biomass changes in response to climate factors isn't it?

The issue is not the variation of CO2 concentration. The negligible effect of CO2 concentrations on temperature leave CO2 changes to be of only academic interest as regards climate change.

Yes CO2 does vary in response to interglacial warmings, variation in solar irradiation of the earth's surface, and other climate factors as is obvious from the charts.

Strange how that happens when the biomass changes in response to climate factors isn't it?

The issue is not the variation of CO2 concentration. The negligible effect of CO2 concentrations on temperature leave CO2 changes to be of only academic interest as regards climate change.

While you were at it you should have shown us the UN/IPCC pretended projections of what happens under a mere 2x change in CO2 concentration, (in comparison to the 21x change in CO2 concentration of geophysical record that could only move global surface temperatures 1 degree C)

From your UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) site:

21. Using the IS92 emission scenarios, projected global mean temperature changes relative to 1990 were calculated up to 2100. Climate models calculate that the global mean surface temperature could rise by about 1 to 4.5 centigrade by 2100. The topmost curve is for IS92e, assuming constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and high climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C. The lowest curve is for IS92c and assumes constant aerosol concentrations beyond 1990 and a low climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C. The two middle curves show the results for IS92a with "best estimate" of climate sensitivity of 2.5 °C: the upper curve assumes a constant aerosol concentration beyond 1990, and the lower one includes changes in aerosol concentration beyond 1990. (It is assumed that the Greenhouse effect is reduced with increased aerosols.)
Note: In IPCC reports, climate sensitivity usually refers to the long- term or equilibrium, change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of CO₂-equivalent atmospheric concentrations. More generally, it refers to the equilibrium change in surface air temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing (°C/Wm-2)