"I see a relationship between the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rising global temps."
No you don't. What you see is an attempt to stitch modern instrumental data on _atmospheric_ CO2 with a gas extracted from _ice_ cores. Contrary to general belief, the bubbles released from compressed ice are not the straight atmosphere samples from the past: the gas undergone a lot of transformations. First, the ancient air has been flowing though partially porous show and firn for 1000 to 4000 years before the microcavities got closed. As result, any possible peaks in CO2 have been averaged due to mechanical mixing. Then the bubbles got gradually dissolved into surrounding ice under ever growing pressure from piling layers of snow and ice. During 100 thousand years the components of atmosphere formed bonds with water molecules, called "clathrates", each clathrate having own different critical pressure to form. Then the whole thing was sitting together for another 300,000 years forming God knows what kind of other bonds that have never been studied. Then, when inquiring people drilled a deep hole in the ice and extracted the bores into surface, rapid depressurising of ice occurred, with ice cracking and partially releasing gases, under different time schedule. The rest, whatever has left inside the remaining ice samples, was stored in open air for a year or two in underground cool storage before the samples got processed and analysed. The processing is also something to think about, since for some reason the ice cannot be simply melted, it was crushed into smaller pieces using stainless steel needles in a stainless steel container. What you see is the result of those residuals from ancient atmosphere. To my knowledge, the process I described has never been analyzed in terms of gas composition changes and errors in determining CO2 concentrations that resulted from that lengthy and rocky process.
What you see on the first graph is an attempt to match a set of data that have been smoothened with a sliding average of 4000-years long and with undefined absolute amplitude, with a few unfiltered samples (few samples relative to the time scale of the first graph). I would assert that this stitching is scientifically invalid unless you accumulate modern instrumental data for at least 4,000 years and take an average of them. Then we can talk.
The other pictures represent the so-called "hockey stick" effect, which have been criticised elsewhere.
Cheers,
- Ali |
