Af Frank Lansner 23/10 2019. Herunder bl.a. Lansners indlæg i WattsUpWithThat fra Januar 2009 om samme emne.

d. 31/5 2019 blev følgende indlæg publiceret i Jyllandsposten: ”De nuværende klimaændringer er helt overvejende naturlige” [1] af Jens Morten Hansen, geolog, adj. professor i naturfilosofi.

JMH argumenterer blandt andet at CO₂ variation henover istiderne kommer efter variation i temperatur.  Altså:

Mere varme => Mere CO₂

Mere kulde => Mindre CO₂

Problemet er, at de Arktiske data ikke viser konkret at CO₂-peaks også medfører temperatur-peaks så vi i data kan se en kausalitet, at CO₂ medfører en større opvarmning.

De Antarktiske istidsdata er ofte blevet brugt som de fundamentale data der faktisk viser os at CO₂ har en dramatisk opvarmende effekt.

Som modsvar bragte JP 9 dage efter [2] argumentationen:

” Et varmere hav vil udgasse CO2, som alle der har efterladt en sodavand i varmen har erfaret. Derfor stiger CO2-koncentrationen i atmosfæren, hvilket leder til stærkere drivhuseffekt. Det har igen en selvforstærkende effekt på temperaturstigningen.”

Så hovedargumentet her er:

”hvilket leder til stærkere drivhuseffekt” 

Det er da muligt, men det er jo ikke et faktum der kan konkret eftervises med disse fundamentale data.

En stor CO₂-effekt er stadig en antagelse, trods JP´s ”argument” her.

JP teamet fortsætter:

”Drivhuseffekten fra CO2 er således en af grundene til at de naturlige temperaturstigninger fra istiderne til mellemistiderne er større og hurtigere end ændringerne i Jordens bane i sig selv tilsiger.”

Vi tager den lige igen:

”Drivhuseffekten fra CO2 er således…”

“således” : Altså igen, en formulering der giver indtryk af at noget er godtgjort, ganske uden at være det.

JP har igen på ingen måde vist at de Antarktiske data rent faktisk viser at CO2 har en dramatisk opvarmende effekt. 

Således forekommer det at være antagelsen om en stor opvarmende effekt af CO2 i den virkelige Jord-atmosfære der giver JP teamet konklusionen at CO2 har en stor effekt i den virkelige Jord-atmosfære.

Rescue-CO2-theory

Visse læsere tænker nok at jeg har overset et argument. Sagen er nemlig, at efter at disse ”inconvenient” data sammenhænge kom frem så opstod ”Rescue-CO2-theory” argumentet, at …

”Vi kan rent fysisk ikke have så store temperaturændringer som istiderne byder på hvis ikke CO2 spiller en afgørende og dominerende rolle!”

Denne påstand kræver

Krav 1:

At disse forskere har helt exceptionelt suverænt meget styr på alle tænkelige komplekse mekanismer der kan påvirke Jordens temperaturer. 

Disse forskere skal så først bevise at de har fuldstændigt styr på samtlige mekanismer der kan tænkes at påvirke Jordens temperaturer fra dybet af havet til kosmos.  Og dette skal ses i lyset af at IPCC f.eks. kun medtager den lille TSI effekt (direkte indstråling) som kandidat for alle Solens samlede potentielle effekter!

     Krav 2:

     At De Antarktiske data ikke direkte taler imod dette CO2-rescue-argument. Men de Antarktiske data synes om noget at afkræfte kernen i ”CO₂-rescue-argumentet”

Om noget så viser Antarktiske CO₂ data at vi godt kan have store temperaturændringer uden at CO₂ følger med og dermed kan være en mulig forklaring.

Dette er emnet for min gamle artikel i WattsUpWithThat fra januar 2009 [3].

Jeg prøver her at vise at stort set hele temperaturændringen fra mellemistid til istid sker uden at CO2 når at følge med ned. Dette er er det normale billede efter mellemistider. Derfor viser de Antarktiske data faktisk 2 ting:

1. CO₂-variation kommer efter temperatur-variation
2. Vi ser typisk at næsten hele temperatur-variationen fra mellemistid til istid indfinder sig før nævneværdige ændringer i CO₂ indholdet i atmosfæren. CO₂ er altså ikke forklaringen på at så store temperaturforskelle kan eksistere på Jorden. CO₂-rescue-argumentet er altså dødfødt med data.

Mit engelske ikke helt perfekt, men here goes, ”Golden Oldie”  WattsUpWithThat Jan. 2009 [3].

!

Jeg vil anbefale at man læser i hvert fald op til og med fig 5 og 6.

Disse figurer viser ganske tydeligt at helt ens CO2-niveau medfører helt forskellige temperatur trends og dermed at andre kræfter totalt dominerer udviklingen for temperatur trends over CO2.

!

Jeg kan her supplere med følgende figur:

Bemærk hvorledes CO2 for ca 120.000 år siden først styrdykker efter at temperaturer næsten har fundet bundniveauet. Skråsikre forskere som i Jyllandsposten der postulerer at denne temperaturændring kun kan skyldes CO2 har ikke kigget grundigt på deres data.

Så, Ét – Nul til Jens Morten Hansen over Jyllandsposten   😉

CO2, Temperatures and Ice Ages

Anthony Watts / January 30, 2009

Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.

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.

Fig 1.

But this is the climate debate, so rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:

First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down.

Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.

Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:

Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostok data confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.

Fig 3. The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown, blue arrows.

Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:

Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.

I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…

The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.

So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.

The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of identical CO2 concentrations, example A and example B:

Fig 5.

So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:

Fig 6.

How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?

One thing is for sure:

“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”

This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was:

“We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.

But the simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”.

So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 none the less could be the main driver of temperatures.

– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, it should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?!  (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)

Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?

No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?

This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.

Fig 7.

Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.

However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.

When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”

This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:

First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.

What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.

It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:

Fig 8.

Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.