The CO2 boogie man science is just that. Core samples do not back up hansen’s claims. This is one explanation from 2009. More recent data is out there. No sense arguing... I do not think that I will change your mind nor will you change mine. I do research and believe what I see to be the truth. The truth as I see it is that those that claimed that the fish in the seas would be dead by now, Arizona would be the new California and that snow and ice would be a thing children read about in the History books are part of a organized con greater than any ever conceived by man. I do appreciate your civility in the discussion that we have had.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages
Posted on January 30, 2009 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa. That's true. The earth starts warming from solar changes, then CO2 is released from the warming oceans. But look at that chart:
It shows a 50 ppm rise in CO2 for about each 3-4 C rise in temperature or about 15 ppm rise for each 1 degree rise. Following the Little Ice Age which peaked in the late 1800's the earth has warmed about 1 degree (less in the oceans but let's assume they warmed 1C also). That would produce about 15 ppm rise in CO2. In the 1800's CO2 was at 280 ppm. Now it is about 395ppm, a rise of 115ppm. The "extra" amount of rise (100 ppm) is almost certainly from manmade CO2.
There are other possibilities like volcanic origin, but scant evidence for them. The largest volcanoes might emit 100 of MT (Pinatubo was 42) and manmade CO2 is 9000 MT. Another possibility is that some other natural flux is involved. There is a large natural flux of 100's of 1000's of MT each year. But that is mostly released in fall and absorbed in spring by dying and growing plants in the northern hemisphere.
The main problem with suggesting a natural origin comes form the graph. Current CO2 is higher than previous periods as shown by the thin red line on the top right. But it is also true that each increase in CO2 has less of an effect than the previous (a logarithmic rise) So the warming from doubling of CO2 alone will be a very modest 1C subject to possible positive or negative feedbacks.