Re: [Phys-L] just for fun?

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

I've never understood this talking point.  To first order rising temperatures lead to rising levels of CO2 and rising levels of CO2 lead to rising temperatures.  As John Denker has already pointed out, it's a positive feedback loop.  

Historically it's easy to imagine mechanisms that would increase the temperature and LEAD to increased levels of CO2 (thereby further increasing the temperature, thereby ... etc.).  I've heard of the research suggesting the opposite, but frankly I can't help being a little skeptical.  I'm not a climatologist, but on the basis of simple physical considerations I would EXPECT the historical record to show temperature leading CO2.

But in modern times, we know with very high confidence that CO2 in the atmosphere has been driven to levels unseen in at least hundreds of thousands of years and that the source of that increase is anthropogenic, NOT thermal.  This is clearly the first time that such a thing has happened in the Earth's entire history.  Furthermore, we know to expect higher temperatures to RESULT from these higher levels of CO2 and that is what we are seeing.

What am I missing?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
 
On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:16 PM, David Marx wrote:

> I am aware of at least nine different studies in the literature with the kind
> of detailed analysis you are talking about, but every one of them had
> temperature leading CO2 by at a minimum of 800 years for some parts of the
> history and up to 1300 years for other parts.
>
> > The research is a very recent analysis of ice cores, possibly within the
> > last year.  I don't recall where I saw it, but I know that it is out there.
> > Perhaps someone else can come up with a reference.
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX