Climate Denial crock of the Week: "Temp leads Carbon"
This is one of Peter Sinclair’s best videos. It does a fabulous job of explaining the science behind the issue and debunking the skeptic argument. He addresses what has for some time been a favorite page in the skeptic playbook: the bogus argument that AGW is refuted by the fact that at the termination of recent ice ages, increases in temperature initially lag behind increases in CO2. This argument is a straw man; nobody is denying that this patterns occurs. But this observation, and the fact that temperature can indeed have strong effects on CO2 conc., in no way undercuts the science behind AGW. The simple explanation for this is that we know that many other factors influence global temperature. And ice ages are thought to be controlled by Milankovitch cycles and not by changes in atmospheric CO2. That doesn’t mean that CO2 does not also influence global temperature or that it isn’t the major driver of recently observed global warming.
IOW as John Cook pokes fun at this illogical argument: ”Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.
There are better written explanations of this issue by far more knowledgeable people than me here and here. And Peter’s video is a great place to start:
4 Responses to Climate Denial crock of the Week: "Temp leads Carbon"
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Archives
- January 2013 (10)
- December 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (4)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (4)
- March 2012 (5)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (3)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (11)
- July 2011 (11)
- June 2011 (5)
- May 2011 (17)
- April 2011 (6)
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (8)
- January 2011 (9)
- December 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (15)
- October 2010 (16)
- September 2010 (6)
- August 2010 (13)
- July 2010 (8)
- June 2010 (26)
- May 2010 (18)
- April 2010 (26)
- March 2010 (42)
- February 2010 (61)
- January 2010 (24)
- December 2009 (43)
- November 2009 (30)
- October 2009 (29)
- September 2009 (36)
- August 2009 (31)
- July 2009 (33)
- June 2009 (23)
- May 2009 (19)
- April 2009 (21)
- March 2009 (19)
- February 2009 (7)
- January 2009 (19)
- December 2008 (20)
- November 2008 (15)
- October 2008 (8)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (12)
- June 2008 (14)
- May 2008 (17)
- April 2008 (11)
- March 2008 (11)
- February 2008 (16)
- January 2008 (11)
- December 2007 (7)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (25)
- July 2007 (18)
- June 2007 (4)






This is an excellent series, thanks Peter, and John.
I guess this means that you agree that when Al Gore presented that HUGE chart of CO2 and temperature, and suggested, based on that chart, that CO2 drives temperature, he was wrong.
In which case, I’d have thought it would have been a good idea to correct that huge misleading conclusion, as I suspect many people still think that CO2 drives temperature based on what Al Gore said.
Isn’t that backwards ?
Hey Steve,
Sorry, but the CO2 / temperature lag discussion has been discussed countless occasions already. Start with this one from back in 2007:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ (The lag between temperature and CO2. [Gore’s got it right.])
See also:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
As I said in the other post – can you suggest a peer reviewed journal article that shows that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature?