Yes, I see your point. Although, you have to admit that the correlation between the temperature and CO2 (even allowing for all the signal noise) is still pretty obvious. I think that the “problem” you identify is more a matter of scale than anything else. What we are seeing is the 8deg rise in temperature as we come out of the Little Ice Age, followed by a fairly consistent +/- 2deg fluctuation for the last 10,000 years. But on these sort of timeframes, and looking at the data on this scale, the thickness of the drawn line can be more than the signal variation.

Yes, there is an apparent up-tick in the CO2 level, and what appears to be missing is an equivalent up-tick in temperature either before or after the change in CO2.

But looking at the graph from an engineering perspective, what I see over the last 10,000 years or so is the “ringing” associated with some naturally limiting factor. If you are an audio buff, you will know the phenomena as “signal clipping”. You can turn the volume up as much as you like, but you won’t get more sound energy, only increased distortion.

The interesting thing to me is that the CO2 just keeps on going up, in spite of that limitation. And now it appears to be decreasing again, also in spite of the limitation. This implies that temperature and CO2 levels do not have any direct causation on each other, but rather both respond (in different ways) to a third external factor. The sun perhaps?

Report this

00

Report this

00

Here’s the one that’s troubling me from Vostok page. That sharp upturn in —temp CO2 commencing @~18,000 years ago.

It tends to defeat the argument when directing prospective converts to Jo’s Vostok pages & they look for the most recent example, this one.

Report this

00

Here’s the one that’s troubling me from Vostok page. That sharp upturn in temp commencing @~18,000 years ago.

It tends to defeat the argument when directing prospective converts to Jo’s Vostok pages & they look for the most recent example, this one.

Report this

00

So, If I understand this correctly, you are saying that 18,000 years ago, CO2 started rising, and this was followed, 1000 years later by an increase in temperature. What you do not mention, is that this rise in temperature has often been followed by a further increase in the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, about 600 to 700 years later.

Both temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere are cyclic phenomena, and although in engineering terms, the signals are very noisy, they do appear to follow a fundamental frequency where the two signals have a phase shift of around 600 to 700 years, where the level of CO2 lags the rise in temperature.

I have always wanted to do a Fourier analysis on the Vostok time series, but unfortunately I no longer have access to the sort of computing power necessary to cope with all of the distortions in the signal. I think that much could be learnt about the physical world if all of the constituent signals could be extracted and correlated with observations from nature.

Report this

00

If this is true, it doesn’t follow the suggestion that CO2 rise lags temperature rise ?

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00