Historically, did global temperature rises come AFTER carbon level rises?

Question

Historically, did global temperature rises come AFTER carbon level rises?

Answer 1

There is a correlation between the two. All the internationally acclaimed scientists agree on this, except a few politically motivated lobbyists. This is easily displayed in lab tests so this sort of propaganda can be ignored. Bottom line is that CO2 heats the atmosphere by influencing radiation and then it really doesn't matter whether evidence can be found in historical records, just see for yourself in a lab.



Here is a quote that describes CO2's influence ..

"Shortwave energy (that emitted by the sun) passes through the atmosphere pretty much unimpeded, to ultimately be intercepted by the ground. The warm ground emits longwave radiation in proportion to the fourth power of its temperature. In a completely dry, CO2-less and ozone-less atmosphere, this upwelling longwave radiation would all be lost to space. Carbon dioxide absorbs upwelling long wave radiation and re-emits it back to the ground, thereby reducing the amount of heat that escapes to space, warming the planet. The warmer planet evaporates more water, and the water vapor absorbs even more longwave radiation than the carbon dioxide, warming the planet even more."

Answer 2

In some cases, yes, there was a rise in temperatures before a rise in CO2. This should not be taken to mean, however, that CO2 was not the main driving force behind the change. CO2 acts as both a forcing and a feedback- a rise in temperatures causes a rise in CO2, which causes a further rise in temperature which leads to higher levels of CO2... and so on. So while several past changes were, in fact, 'kicked off', as it were, by variations in Earth's orbit, carbon dioxide was by far the most important factor in the change.



On another note, I see that you've linked to The Great Global Warming Swindle. I know you're probably entirely convinced that anthropogenic climate change simply isn't happening or even possible, but I can assure that the entire film is simply one big piece of propaganda from beginning to end. In fact, one of the scientists involved in the film (Carl Wunsch) is now demanding that he be removed from it entirely, saying that he was deceived into believing that the production was to be a scientific and unbiased look at climate change theory. Further stating that had he been informed as to the true nature and content of the film, he never would have agreed to appear in it at all, calling it a piece of "outright propaganda".



You can read Mr. Wunsch's letter to channel 4 here:



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/



And a short refutation of the film's arguments here:



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/



RealClimate is a Blog run by fifteen highly qualified climate scientists currently doing research in the field, so you can lay to rest any concerns you may have with the site's credibility.



I very much doubt that you'll ever read or even touch the links I provided, but I hope that at the very least one or two people who haven't yet made up their minds on the issue won't be persuaded by the rubbish you just linked.

Answer 3

the data is here:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

CO2 always goes up after temperature, the global warming people hardly ever show this graph, they only show a zoomed in version showing only the last 20 years. In their graph temp and CO2 are heading up at the same rate which is misleading. When you look at the full graph you can see that their zoomed in graph is not what the data shows.

Answer 4

Gore is wrong. Temperature rise came first the carbon rise.

Answer 5

yes, the temperature of the earth has been steadily rising for thousands of years, the problem, though, is the increased rate at which it is rising due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It's expected for the temp to rise, but at this faster rate we will be unable to adapt to the changes.

Answer 6

no, carbon levels rise after temperature



primarily because the sea warms and gives off the Co2 because of that warming

Answer 7

Actually he misaligned the graphs on his movie. I think he did it on purpose, but he claims it was a mistake.



Bottom line, it's the other way around. The CO2 levels rise following a warming trend by several hundred years. What it tells us is that life becomes more abundant during these warming periods and more CO2 is emitted.



One thing you need to understand is that CO2 is a good gas. It's what the trees live on. Without it they will die. Human actually emit a mere 2% of the CO2 on this planet anyway. Most comes from the oceans.

Answer 8

It's a lap-over quandary as in which came first, the chicken or the egg. In prehistoric eras when the earth was new until now scientific investigations have a direct correlation but no one can get to the point of the ORIGINAL rise as carbon is in everything. They even carbon test ancient objects to identify dates etc. and of course the earth temp. was extremely hot and volatile hence the dilemma.

Answer 9

Wow so many different answers, do you know why? Because it is impossible for us in 2006 to accurately measure anything about the climate from century ago let alone a million years or 60 million years ago. You can't even accurately compare ice or gasses "trapped" in ice from different time periods because they are from different time periods! They're going to be different! It's comparing apples and oranges.

Answer 10

Yes, it is true that historically rise in CO2 followed rise in temperature. Even realclimate.org concedes this point in their review on the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Answer 11

yes

Answer 12

they both are corralated and cannot say one is better then the other. for reason for global warming. they both are related to global warming.

Answer 13

yes

Answer 14

To answer the question, and not the comment, yes!

Answer 15

No. Global Warming was invented by the media so they could have something to report.