Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 was not the driver


CO2 changes come AFTER the temperature changes.

“While the CO2 and temperature go up – somewhat – together,  when the temperature plummets after each peak, the CO2 stays high!” says reader Jimmy Walter.



“If CO2 were the driver, the temperature could not drop!”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/vostok-co2-and-temperature.jpg



12 thoughts on “Vostok ice cores prove that CO2 was not the driver”

  1. What’s more interesting is the chart shows the last three Interglacial, with our very low temperature interglacial on the right hand side, it also shows its stunted plateau caused by the series of Younger Dryas events on the rise up to Interglacial max. Notice how Co2 has exceeded the temperature trend and it is not following it ever upwards – I agree there is no link.
    Any spike of temperature rise since 1850 is part of that natural interglacial warming cycle and not Man, even a rise to of 2C between now and the end of this Interglacial would be within trend for this interglacial and there is nothing we can do about it.
    The worlds average temperature depends on the amount of energy captured from the Sun over the next 6, 172 year solar cycles, after that period of time it 1s far more likely the decent into the next glaciation would have commenced.
    This is the prediction for the next 200 years of solar output.
    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/200predsm.jpg

  2. Brazil, July 18, 2017 (with video) : Santa Catarina saw lowest temperature of the year: – 7.4 ° C
    Cold is so much that droplets of water freeze in contact with the plants.
    In Rio Grande do Sul, temperatures were negative in 28 cities.
    Brazilians from various states spent Tuesday (18) ice cream. The Serra da Catarina recorded on Tuesday the lowest temperature of the year: – 7.4º C.
    The ice seems to sprout from the earth. With such a scenario, everyone does pose. At Morro das Torres, in Urupema, the minimum temperature was -6.6º C and the thermal sensation – it is difficult to talk to the wind -, the thermal sensation reached to -17º C. It was all white, it looks like snow. It looks like snow, but it is not. It was an immense, giant freeze.
    What happened at the highest point of Urupema, in Santa Catarina, is a phenomenon called icicle. The cold is so strong that the droplets of water suspended in the fog freeze in contact with the plants.
    “Freeze, freeze yes, the toe I’m not feeling anything,” said Rafael Cavalcanti.
    Not even the towers that name the hill escaped. The image impresses. The car even looks like it came out of a freezer. The lowest temperature recorded in Brazil this year was in Santa Catarina, Bom Jardim da Serra: – 7.4º C.
    Cold days also in Rio Grande do Sul. Temperatures were negative in 28 cities in the state. One of the main sights of Gramado is the famous thermometer, which is in the central region of the city and has reached zero degree. It’s a must-have image for anyone to carry with them.
    In Curitiba, the coldest capital of the country, the minimum temperature was 1º C in the early morning of this Tuesday (18). In the interior of Paraná, temperatures also plummeted. On Monday (17), it snowed for 20 minutes in Palmas, southern region of the state. Early it was still possible to find snow in some parts of the city. The minimum there was – 2.7 ° C.
    The cold front also arrived in Mato Grosso, and surprised the people accustomed to very hot. Chapada dos Guimarães, minimum temperature forecast for this Tuesday, 2ºC. Only the feeling was of a much lower temperature. Lots of fog, fine rain, very wind, conditions that made up the postcard of the city, the Sant’Ana Church, in the main square, virtually disappearing in the early hours of the day.
    Twelve degrees to the South Region is normal. But imagine in Acre?
    “We always look forward to the cold, and today he came willingly,” said the resident.
    http://g1.globo.com/jornal-nacional/noticia/2017/07/serra-catarinense-registra-menor-temperatura-do-ano-74c.html

  3. Temps drive CO2. CO2 lags Temps by c.800 years. Present rises in CO2 can be attributed to the Medieval Warming period of c.800 years ago..

  4. It takes while for the extra precipitation to scrub the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.

  5. Assuming (arguendo) that CO2 was the driver of climate change, we would have to acknowledge that something OTHER THAN HUMANS was causing CO2 to go up and down for hundreds of millions of years before us humans evolved and invented the internal combustion engine.

    And that whatever it was (Gaia? Mother Nature?) had caused CO2 to go up and down hundreds of times causing hundreds of cycles of global warming / cooling over the last 50 million years at intervals of approx. 100,000 years.

  6. Yes, this chart does indicate that CO2 is not a temperature driver…but it does show that CO2 is as high as it has been in 100k years. This at least is giving credence to the faction of climate change. It would be helpful to have the solar data and volcanic activity of the last 100k plotted with this data…then you would really be able to compare what happen to the survival/extension to forecast what is going to happen in the next 2 generations.

  7. If, as climate alarmists claim – Trenberth et al Energy Budget, GHGs are responsible for 83% of the infra-red radiation Earth emits to space then how does a higher concentration of GHGs reduce this ?

    Logically, higher levels of radiating gases means more radiation to space not less.

    And if they are right and Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb IR and therefore do not emit IR then how does 99% of the atmosphere ever shed the heat energy it gains ?

    99% of the atmosphere is at 30°C during a summer day after all. And rising in the atmosphere is not shedding energy – it is merely converted to gravitational potential energy – it is not lost to space.

    If 99% of the atmosphere – Oxygen and Nitrogen – do radiate – and according to physics books everything does – then the additional radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere is irrelevant !

    If 99% of the atmosphere cools transferring the absorbed “heat” to GHGs which make up less than 2% – water vapour – and 0.04% for CO2 then, with the imbalance in probability of colliding with a GHG at least 50:1 against, at that rate 99% of the atmosphere would never cool overnight before the Sun rises and starts heating everything up again.

    The whole greenhouse thing is nonsense.

  8. Solar Radiation, and/or the Lack of it.. is the Big Temperature Elephant in the Room.. .. Whenever Temps have very abruptly plummeted or risen – we should know that “something” is acting as a powerful dimmer switch; Whether that be the Sun itself shutting down somewhat AND/OR -> very large amounts of umbrella-like particulates in the Atmosphere/Stratosphere… Huge Volcanic Eruptions/Ejectae are also almost always associated with Mass Extinctions caused by long term X-Tra-Cold Climate.

  9. This is not news unfortunately. The pattern has been visible since those curves were first published and the very same observations by naive observers (I was one once upon a time) have been made repeatedly. The AGW crew simply “explain” that “yes, CO2 does start to increase after temperatures begin to rise. But, after that happens, CO2 takes over because of ‘feedback’.” Pointing out that the explanation makes no physical sense, the actual “powers” attributed to CO2 are contrary to empirical data, and the explainer offers no actual evidence of CO2 as an actual driver of climate once things start to warm simply gets your questions deleted from threads in “serious” climate blogs.

  10. When I studied earth science (at MIT, before they sold out for a mess of pottage called “grant money”), it was common knowledge that (a) the SUN is the main driver of climate on this planet, and (b) that CO2 is a TRAILING indicator, not a leading indicator. That means it tags along after a change comes; it is not a herald, leading the way.

Comments are closed.