Then why did Dr. Berner say:
"Over Phanerozoic time a major control on global climate has been the CO2 greenhouse effect, and changes in CO2 have been a consequence of a combination of geological, biological, and astronomical factors," hmmm?
Where did those changes have to come from? "a consequence of a combination of geological, biological, and astronomical factors"
What was the actual change in concentration?
21x change in CO2 concentration. from 7000ppmv to 320 ppmv
What was the change in temperature that can be correlated with that CO2 change after removing the effect of the primary initiators of change?
1 degree C.
The issue is clear that CO2 not a major "driver" as shown clearly in reviewing the data and the statement of Brenner.
Note a driver = cause, change in CO2 concentration is "a consequence of a combination of geological, biological, and astronomical factors"
Remove the effects of gamma ray bursts, meteoric, plate tecktoniks on cloud and ice cover in affecting the albedo(reflectivity of the Earth), what is left over is the correlation of 1 degree C with a 21x change in CO2.
Why do these esteemed geological scientists say that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a major factor (a "control" or "driver") on global climate if CO2 concentrations have a negligible effect on temperature?
They quite simply overstate the role of CO2, as we both know scientist's of just as great a standing say the opposite with the data and physics clearly supporting the lesser role of CO2 in view of the much greater role clouds, ice & water vapor play in controlling the climate.
Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Is there some other way that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would significantly affect global climate, AG?
I'm sure you will tell us if there is, we'll check on it for your :O)
1 degree C.
In what part of your voluminous contributions does that figure appear?
The issue is clear that CO2 not a major "driver" as shown clearly in reviewing the data and the statement of Brenner.
Incorrect. Crowley and Berner 2001, which I have made a copy of over the weekend but which requires access to Science magazine online if you want to read it online have an excellent figure that I wish I could reproduce here. It shows the total net radiative forcing over the Phanerozoic, combined with the CO2 concentrations (which also appear in one of your figures, which is why I felt it necessary to bring Berner into this discussion), as well as low-latitude paleotemperatures and glacial epochs. There is only one extended glacial epoch -- the Ordovician -- which does not correlate with the periods of lowest radiative forcing. Note that radiative forcing was calculated for changing solar luminosity as well as CO2 concentrations. However, the periods of highest net radiative forcing uniformly occur when CO2 levels are elevated. The glacial epochs, with the exception of the Ordovician, uniformly occur with low CO2 concentrations. As the authors note:
"For comparison with climate indices, it is important to consider the net radiative forcing, which combines the logarithmic relation between CO2 and radiative forcing with estimated increases in the sun's output over time. The latter term, generally considered robust (ref. Endal and Sofia 1981) corresponds to 1% increase in the solar constant per 100 million years and modifies the relative size of the early Phanerozoic and Mesozoic (245-65 Ma) CO2 peaks substantially."
So, attempting to directly correlate CO2 concentration with temperature is fallacious in the Phanerozoic. Summary: the primary factor determining net radiative forcing in the Phanerozoic is atmospheric CO2 concentration, but the value of net radiative forcing is modified (not determined) by variability in solar luminosity.
We'll examine what Crowley and Berner say about the anomalous Ordovician glaciation tomorrow, and then get to what they say about Veizer's research. And then I plan to delve deeper into the Vostok ice core correlations, a topic that I began discussing with "gatex".