In other posts, I have discussed the 800-year lag between temperature and CO2 in the ice core histories. For those not aware of the issue, ice core data, like that shown by Al Gore in An Inconvinient Truth, initially showed a very strong and compelling correlation between CO2 and temperature. Not only did CO2 look like a driver of climate, it looked like the driver. But Gore is very careful how he presents this chart in his movie (one of his Really Big Charts). The reason is that by the time of the movie, better instrumentation and lab procedure had shown that temperature increases in the ice core data actually preceeded CO2 increases by 800 or more years. CO2 was being increased by heating of the oceans and outgassing of CO2 from them, not the other way around.
The Science and Public Policy Institute has found a pretty glaring fabrication in Laurie David’s global warming propoganda book for kids. The book shows kids this graph:
Pretty compelling. Every 75,000 years or so there is a CO2 spike, followed by a temperature spike. But the SPPI folks found something interesting by going back to the original source: Laurie David has reversed the legend. They have called the red line CO2, when in fact it is temperature, and vice versa, reversing the causality back the way she apparently wants it.
SPPI goes back to David’s source just to make sure, and yes, the original study behind the chart confirms that temeprature rises before CO2.
On page 103 of their book, David and Gordon cite the work of Siegenthaler et al. (2005), for their written and graphical contention that temperature lags CO2. However, Siegenthaler et al. clearly state the opposite:
“The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.”
(Siegenthaler et al., 2005, Science, vol. 310, 1313-1317)
Oops. Are lies OK if they are "for the children?"
I’m just waiting for Fair Tax for Children and Dick, Jane, and the Prime Interest Rate and Where 527s Come From.
It’s only fair.
That seriously confused me until I realized that time was going backwards.
Laurie David responds at the Huffinton Post here. She claims a simple mislabeling error.
On a whim I stopped by my local bookstore for a look. Indeed all the graphs and charts are credited to a Stephen Schudlich. So maybe. But wow, of all the graphs to get wrong, and to get it wrong in that specific way is really, really odd.
BTW, that section is all of 2.5 pages, and about 3 paragraphs. I wanted to see if she specifically wrote that T lagged CO2, but she did not. She only states that the two are linked. Ya know, I can almost believe that Gore and David did not know of and/or understand the implications of the lag at the time of An Inconvenient Truth. But surely they do now, as it was one of the main criticisms of the movie. So, for Davis to now state that T and CO2 are linked without mentioning the big caveat that goes with it is, imo, journalistic fraud.
Daniel Lucraft: Me too!
The error, undetected for so long is a real mystery to those of us who are not trained in such things.
Where were the watch dogs? The “Referrees”?
followup:
In fairness, I have to say that the SPPI is not being real truthful either. In as much as the SPPI implies David actually writes that T precedes CO2, she didn’t.
Kinda wished I’d sprung for the $16. I saw a number of the usual whoppers, and that was just flipping through it.
I’m not a climate scientist, just a lowly internal medicine physician, and I only saw the temperature/CO2 graph posted at an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (in Nov. 2006) and I noticed that temperature led the CO2 increase and deduced that oceanic outgassing must be the cause. I knew I couldn’t be the only one to have figured the outgassing part out and am glad to see it in print (even if it’s electronic print). Why can’t the AGW militants? One can only guess it’s because they don’t want to.
I’m not a climate scientist, just a lowly internal medicine physician, and I only saw the temperature/CO2 graph posted at an exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (in Nov. 2006) and I noticed that temperature led the CO2 increase and deduced that oceanic outgassing must be the cause. I knew I couldn’t be the only one to have figured the outgassing part out and am glad to see it in print (even if it’s electronic print). Why can’t the AGW militants? One can only guess it’s because they don’t want to.
AGW!!!
I have never believed it from the outset as the logic of CO2 determining global temperatures is utter twaddle.
The mounting evidence that supports AGW cynicism is largely ignored by the media and the snippets that do make it through the media sieve are met with ridicule by the greenies or whatever these vigilantes like to call themselves.
Satelite readings correlate well with ocean buoy reading throughout the globe and show a fall over the past 30 years rather than a rise as the media like to show.
Reports of the arctic ice melting and breaking up are just sensationalist. The media should reveal the whole story which include the Gakkel Ridge which is active and despite its presence the ice continues to reform with a vengence each and every winter.
English language seems to have changed for the worse when what used to be known as the seasons is now regarded as climate change.
I will not bore those who read this with more debunking facts as you can find them for yourselves.
To summise – Climate change is not a problem – the media censorship by omission is and so is ultimately our governmental leadership. One has to only look at Iraq to see this!
For those who are prepared to break the shackles of cognitive dissonance then researching the Working theory of abiotic (abiogenic) oil which has been established by Russian geological scientists for more than 6 decades and may prove to be a further avenue of interest.
That is of course unless you wish to remain spoon fed.