Over the years, I’ve learnt through bitter experience that “ignorance is bliss” and that if you go and look at an area of climate it always turns out that the scam is much worse than you could have imagined.
I accepted the work of people like Hermann Harde says that CO2 should cause around 0.6C rise in global temperature for a doubling of CO2 but I assumed the real contention was the amount of feedback.But over the years working on this global warming scam, I’ve realised that there are quite a few ways the earth could be influencing climate – many of which are not even considered because of the present day obsession with CO2. So, when I realised that I might be able to string them together into a coherent theory explaining the ice-age cycle I decided to do the ground work to put that theory into a more rigorous form. That was last summer.
But, for the theory to work, it was important CO2 did cause warming … but like a gullible fool, I just assumed … given all the hype … that it would be relatively simple to find an argument supporting CO2. And what’s more, if my theory were right then whether or not I liked the idea of CO2 driving the climate, it would work so like doing a jigsaw, even if I didn’t understand all the bits just now, if the theory is right, somehow all the bits would magically fit – and if its right – who am I to ascribe moral judgement on it? All I had to do was to spend the time fitting them together.
I knew the lag between temperature and CO2 was a problem. But I assumed someone must have a convincing argument somewhere – or when I looked in detail I would find an explanation. But, I never got to look in detail at the arguments about the CO2 lag with temperature. Instead the big problem came when I looked at the cooling phase:
To the right I have my (hurriedly prepared) graph taken from the Vostok ice cores, showing temperature at the top and CO2 at the bottom shown over roughly 100,000 years of the typical (later) ice-age cycles. The problem is that whilst all show a very sharp rise in temperature very closely coinciding with a rise in CO2, temperature after hitting a peak clearly then has a rapid cooling phase which does not occur with CO2. So in the 16,000 years after the peak, we effectively progress more and more into an ice-age (and no, I’ve not worked out whether we are in the phase).
However that temperature drop occurs without an associated drop in CO2. But if CO2 were driving the temperature, then we must see a drop in CO2 associated with the drop in temperature. So, the lack of change in CO2 at a time temperature drops massively (in each of the last four cycles) is unequivocal proof that CO2 “did not do it”. CO2 was not driving the ice-age cycle.
So, in no shape or form can CO2 be said to be “causing” the temperature change through the ice-age cycles. And if temperature plummets after the inter-glacial peak uncorrelated with CO2, then the rise into the inter-glacial cannot be associated with CO2. And so as these ice-age cycles are the main reason academics postulated massive positive feedbacks, this single piece of evidence can be said to undermine totally the credibility of positive feedbacks and CO2 (aka doomsday global warming).
Too many sceptics have their heads in the sand
Unfortunately, I regularly see articles on WUWT and Bishop Hill discussing how big the positive feedback on CO2 is. The idea that there is no positive feedback and that if anything the climate has almost no change associated with CO2 is so much contrary not only to most climate academics, but most sceptics, that I’m not even going to bother to try to change their minds – because the only thing that will really change minds is a few decades of cooling.
However, having given this thought and having decided that I cannot in any way shape or form condone the idea of positive feedbacks or that CO2 can be seen to have a significant impact in any climate record, I’m going to set down my own views.
My current view of CO2 can be summed up as follows:
I can find no evidence whatsoever linking changes in CO2 to global temperature. Everything in the recent temperature series (e.g. CET) is clearly explained by normal natural variation. There is no need to invoke any “driver” of climate at any time in the CET record. Nothing in the ice cores can be said to show a linkage. That doesn’t rule out a small linkage, but it’s clearly far too small to show significant change and so I cannot with any integrity ascribe any climate change in any climate record with any certainty to CO2.