Temperature changes cause CO2 level changes (not the other way around) disproving 'Gobal Warming'

The relationship between CO2 and climate can go in both directions

Factors other than increased CO₂ concentrations can initiate warming or cooling episodes (see, e.g., orbital forcing). The ice core record shows that on some occasions temperature starts rising hundreds of years before CO₂ increases.^[5][6] Such results confirm that the relationship between CO₂ and climate can go in both directions: changes in CO₂ concentrations affect climate, while changes in climate can affect CO₂ concentrations. One proposed mechanism for this effect is increased release of sequestered CO₂ from oceans as circulation patterns shift, perhaps abruptly, in response to climate change.^[7][8]

Strictly "one-way" relationships between CO2 and temperature contradict basic results in physics

A more speculative and polemical inference sometimes drawn is that the causal relationship between temperature rises and global CO₂ concentrations is only one-way, so that historical increases in CO₂ have been nothing more than the product of independently rising temperatures.^[9] However, a strictly "one-way" view of the relationship between CO₂ and temperature contradicts basic results in physics, specifically the fact that the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by CO₂ increases as its atmospheric concentration increases.^[10][11]

First principles as well as empirical observation suggest that positive feedbacks from CO₂ concentrations amplify warming initially caused by other factors:

Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves [i.e., temperature and CO₂] shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earth’s axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO₂ levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each other’s response, this "positive feedback" can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO₂ rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance. In the current case, the situation is different, because human actions are raising the CO₂ level, and we are starting to observe the temperature response.^[12]

Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data, and are necessary in explaining current climate change

Present CO₂ levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO₂ confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO₂ increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.^[35] However, models that include increased CO₂ levels when simulating recent climate match the observed data far better than those that do not.^[14]

Studies of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels rise and fall with or after (as much as 1000 years) temperature variations.^[1] This argument assumes that current climate change can be expected to be similar to past climate change. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing,^[2] the current variations, of whatever size, are claimed to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO₂ (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO₂ emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO₂ shows that the recent observed CO₂ increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.^[3]

Eric Steig, a climate scientist at RealClimate.org puts it this way:

"On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts."^[4]   ---[BREAK]---

...In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO₂ and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.

A final point. In Barton's criticism of Gore he also points out that CO₂ has sometimes been much higher than it is at present. That is true. CO₂ may have reached levels of 1000 parts per million (ppm) — perhaps much higher — at times in the distant geological past (e.g. the Eocene, about 55 million years ago). What Barton doesn't bother to mention is that the earth was much much warmer at such times. In any case, more relevant is that CO₂ has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities.

Funding for scientists who do not acknowledge anthropogenic global warming

Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism ^[15][16] (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.^[17]

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated^[18][19] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters^[20] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.^[21][22][23]

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',^[24] that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups^[25] though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.^[26]

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"^[27]

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."^[28]

Sources:

1.       Barkov, N.I. (February 2003). "Historical carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice core". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm. Retrieved on 2007-03-13. 

2.       Weart, Spencer (2006), "Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations", in Weart, Spencer, The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of Physics, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm, retrieved on 2007-04-14 

3.       "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-10. 

4.       Real Climate Change (Climate science from Climate scientists) 27 April 2007, The lag between temperature and CO₂. by Eric Steig

5.       Indermühle, Andreas; Monnin, Eric; Stauffer, Bernhard; Stocker, Thomas F.; Wahlen, Martin (2000). "Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters 27. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/indermuehle00grl.pdf. 

6.       Fischer, Hubertus; Wahlen, Martin; Smith, Jesse; Mastroianni, Derek; Deck, Bruce (1999). "Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712. doi:10.1126/science.283.5408.1712. PMID 10073931. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;283/5408/1712. "carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.". 

7.       Skinner, L.C. (2006). "Glacial – interglacial atmospheric CO2 change: a simple “hypsometric effect” on deep-ocean carbon sequestration?" (PDF). Climate of the Past Discussions 2. http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/711/2006/cpd-2-711-2006.pdf. 

8.       Paillard, Didier (2000). "Glacial Cycles: Toward a New Paradigm" (PDF). Reviews of Geophysics 39 (3). http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/paillard_rev_geophys_2001.pdf. 

9.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

10.   Liou, K.N. (2002). An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation (2nd ed). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0124514515. 

11.   Staley, D.O.; G.M. Jurica (1970). "Flux emissivity tables for water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone". Journal of Applied Meteorology 9: 365–372. doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1970)009. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1970)009%3C0365%3AFETFWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2. 

12.   News Story - BAS Statement about Channel 4 programme on Global Warming - British Antarctic Survey

13.   Schimel, D. (1996). CO2 and the carbon cycle, pp.76-86 in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds), Cambridge University Press 1996. 

14.  Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers). IPCC. 2007. ISBN 978 0521 88009-1. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf.  

15.  ExxonSecrets Factsheet: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

16.  "The denial industry". Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2. Retrieved on 2007-08-11. ""By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.""  

17.  Adam, David (27 January 2005). "Oil firms fund climate change 'denial'". Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14. 

18.  Sample, Ian (2 February 2007). "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study". Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14. 

19.  "Climate Controversy and AEI: Facts and Fictions". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 9 February 2007. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.  

20.  Hayward, Steven F.; Kenneth Green (5 July 2006). "AEI Letter to Pf. Schroeder" (PDF). http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.  

21. ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming ABC August 2006 

22.  "Lewandowski memo" (PDF). http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/files/lewandowski_memo.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-12-29. 

23.  FEATURE-Carbon backlash: coal divides corporations James, Steve Reuters, July 2007 

24.  "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science". Union of Concerned Scientists. January 2007. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.  

25.  Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics MSNBC January 2007 

26. Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers Greenpeace May 2007

27.  "Links". Western Fuels. Archived from the original on 2006-01-15. http://web.archive.org/web/20060115152729/http://www.westernfuels.org/links.htm. Retrieved on 2007-04-13. 

28.  Borenstein, Seth (27 July 2006). "Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic". CBS News from Associated Press. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/ap/tech/mainD8J4GH300.shtml. Retrieved on 2007-04-14. 

<s