For CO2 to be considered a driver of Earth’s temperatures, changes in CO2 that uni-directionally correlate with temperatures should not be an exceptional occurrence. Yet a causal link from CO2 radiative forcing to temperature changes could hypothetically be inferred for just 2.6% of the last 425 million years.
A detailed analysis (Davis, 2017) of temperature and CO2 proxies over the Phanerozoic Eon by environmenalist Dr. W. Jackson Davis finds that for 77.9% of the record there was a non-discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature.
On the occasion there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature, most (60%) of the correlation instances were negative. In other words, when a correlation could be discerned, temperatures fell as CO2 rose or CO2 fell as temperatures rose more often than CO2 and temperature rose and fell with a semblence of synchronicity.
If we assume temperature changes are radiatively forced or amplified by CO2, this cause-effect link could be correlationally established for just 2.6% of the 4.25 million-year record.
As Dr. Davis concludes, “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.”
Image Source: Davis, 2017
No discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 80,000 years either
Some newly published papers also contradict the claim CO2 is a driver of Earth’s temperature changes.
Li and Born (2019) document 8-16°C climate warmings (D-O events) in Greenland that extended to both hemispheres between about 80 and 15 thousand years ago. (Though global in scope, temperature changes were less pronounced outside Greenland.)
These abrupt warmings occurred within decades (or less), and they occurred without any CO2 fluctuation before or after the change.
CO2 hovered around 190 ppm to 200 ppm throughout each warming and cooling event.
Even more fascinating, it’s been suggested that these warm-ups may have required no external forcing, as they’re considered an “unforced oscillation”.
The climate system can warm by 8-16°C within decades via internal variability.
Image Source: Li and Born (2019)
Throughout the last glacial, when CO2 remained effectively unchanged at about 200 ppm, there were warming periods that exceeded the Holocene’s thermal maximum by 2-6°C in locations ranging from Southern Europe to Russia to California.
Of course, none of these warming and cooling climate transitions could be associated with changes in CO2 either.
Image Source: Bidauretta, 2019 & Ramos-Roman et al., 2018
Image Source: Ganyushkin et al., 2018
More support for the case that the modern wave of end-of-the-world-is-nigh doomsters are pushing an importance, and a role, for CO2 which it has never seemed to have had in the past. Nor for that matter, in the present, since all we have been seeing in these past few decades is consistent with CO2 being a very minor player.
A 43,000 year old tree couldn’t do it alone while it was living, fully dependent upon the sun and the earth, no doubt about it.
C55H72MgN4O5
Can’t get very far without chlorophyll, in fact, you won’t get much without photosynthesis.
Heavy metals are required to achieve life forms.
Porphyrins have those, hemoglobin is THE porphyrin ring. Oxygen to the rescue.
Light and heat from the sun do what nobody on earth can do, take us out of the dark. You’re able to see with no problem and experience warmth with no trouble at all. Can’t do it alone. An atmosphere that is able to support life forms, you’re on your way, no turning back.
The autotrophs are here so the heterotrophs can live and thrive, the old food chain.
Can’t argue with success. Long live the Earth. har
“Study: No Discernible Link From CO2 Forcing To Climate For 97% Of The Last 425 Million Years
By Kenneth Richard”
Oh please, this is such a stupid idea, you are a fool for thinking it’s true.
I’m sure you don’t to debate it, because somewhere you have again conjured another billion climate science papers that show CO2 has nothing to do with climate. How can one person be so wrong?
Do you have anything substantive to say about the content of these papers, or do you only offer ad hominem, logically-fallacious responses to the presentation of scientific papers? Apparently so.
Explain where you see a correlation between the flat 190-200 ppm CO2 and the last glacial‘s 2-6°C warmer-than-today’s temperatures for California, Southern Europe, or Russia.
Or explain why Greenland warming events that amounted to 10-16°C within a few decades is compatible with claims that CO2 is a driver of polar temperatures.
If you could actually respond to the substance of the article, which is rooted in peer-reviewed scientific papers, that would be a lot more effective than just calling the author of an article a “fool”.
But apparently name-calling is all you have to offer, David Appell.
So foolish.
MDPI is, at best, a junk journal. Pure junk. It’s where losers publish because they couldn’t get published in Science or Nature or the AGU journals or PNAS. Or even PLOS.
No real scientist published in MDPI. None read it. It’s a journal that will satisfy an ego for page charges.
Ripe to fool climate deniers.
So the proxy data used by Dr. Davis to discern temperature and CO2 data throughout the last 425 million years comes from peer-reviewed scientific papers published in non-junk journals, but this same non-junk data is immediately transformed into “pure junk” when it is cited in a paper published in a journal that David Appell characterizes as “junk”. Funny how that works.
Here’s a scientific paper published in MDPI authored by scientists from NASA and Scripps.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/pdf
It says downwelling SW irradiance delivered +0.83 W/m² of climate forcing from 2014-’17, which effectively explains the warming during these years.
But because it’s published in MDPI, David Appell thinks these NASA and Scripps scientists…are no longer scientists.
It’s interesting that David Appell can offer no substantive rebuttal to the content of the papers. All he can do is attack the journal itself and the scientists who publish papers in them. This is what is referred to in philosophical argumentation as an ad hominem logical fallacy. Logically fallacious arguments are viewed as an admission of defeat. Thank you, David.
By the way, can you explain why the correlation between Pacific Ocean temperatures and CO2 concentration has been heading in the opposite direction (CO2 rises as temperatures plummet) for the last 8000 years? Or do you have only ad hominem argumentation to respond to this as well?
Then David, you admit you have no answer to the posted papers or the article itself.
Ad Homs, name calling in general indicate you have nothing to offer here about the subject.
Cheers.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/23/study-no-discernible-link-from-co2-forcing-to-climate-for-97-of-… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/23/study-no-discernible-link-from-co2-forcing-to-climate-for-97-of-… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/23/study-no-discernible-link-from-co2-forcing-to-climate-for-97-of-… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/23/study-no-discernible-link-from-co2-forcing-to-climate-for-97-of-… […]