What the Vostok Ice Core Data Says About Global Warming (and, More Importantly, Cooling)

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

Read “Earth On the Brink of An Ice Age” in Pravda for the rest.


Graph from American Thinker: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming. Read the entire article.

Russian scientists have, for quite some time, been concerned about global cooling rather than global warming, perhaps because their government doesn’t have any Democrats and so isn’t throwing money at scientists* in order to find reasons to deprive the people of shelter, energy and transportation. (A socialist/communist government already does that automatically.)

*If that is the correct term for people that willingly sell out the rest of the populace and condemn them to lives of poverty and squalor for personal gain. Furthermore, they KNOW that CO2 is at historically low levels, and without CO2, all life on earth would end. Maybe it should be whores with some science credentials.

H/T Fresh Bilge


19 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    Robert D said,

    And the Global Warming Cult just yells louder.

  2. 2

    swampie said,

    Yep. Mercury is going to kill us because of global warming.

    Good grief. If it’s so damned dangerous, why are they legislating lightbulbs containing it?

  3. 3

    Robert D said,

    I saw were they drug out that tired old warning about eating fish. The mercury in fish will kill you, but here, put these bulbs that contain more mercury than a fish, in your house. 🙄

  4. 4

    swampie said,

    Well, I have them in my house, but they aren’t working so well outside.

  5. 5

    Robert D said,

    I’ve got them here too swampie and they work well outside on the porches. The price really came down a bunch at some places, 2pack and sometimes a 4pack for a buck. We save a lot on electricity, and we aint skeerd a no dang mercury.

  6. 6

    Energy Reality said,

    CFLs reduce energy consumption (by 75%), thereby reducing the electricity produced by buring coal in coal-fired power plants that provide 49% of U.S. electricity. The avoided electricity consumption that reduces emissions of not only mercury, but also SO2, NOx, and CO2 from coal-fired power plants drastically outweights the trace mercury (less than 0.005 grams) that is used to manufacture the CFL. (Not to mention you could recycle them). I know that life-cycle analysis may be a little over your head, so i’ve included a link to help you out: http://www.energyrace.com/commentary/more_on_mercury_coal_and_cfls_updated/

  7. 7

    kcduffy said,

    Yeah, Swampie, what are ya, some kinda idiot? Anyone can see it’s much more important to follow this life-cycle analysis than to stop funding the plants in China that use child labor and have unsafe conditions for the manufacture of the Best. Bulb. Ever.

    Not to mention the jobs lost, the cost of disposal, and the REAL cost of disposal? You know, cuz Sweet Uncle Sammy always knows and does what’s best for us morons down on the farm!

    I have a 19 month old granddaughter – I don’t let her play with the stuff in my garden barn, and these things are MUCH more dangerous than anything she can break in there.

  8. 8

    swampie said,

    Yeah, I thought it was hilarious. Glad that Energy Reality is so willing to share the “real facts” with us dumbasses.

    CO2 is plant food. Deal with it.

  9. 9

    Energy Reality said,

    I’m a big fat idiot and I want to have Al Gore’s baby.

    Editor’s note: You see, you really do need to read the topic. It was about CO2, not mercury. If you had actually read any of the article (and the comments) you would know that we use the swirlies; however, they don’t work so well in outside areas with high humidity; their life cycle isn’t much more than incandescents.

  10. 10

    kcduffy said,

    SwampWoman, he called us ‘fellas’ and ‘idiots.’ AND seems to insinuate that we don’t work! HA! Anyway, those are good enough reasons for me to bow outta this conversation – grinning hostile people who want to argue make me nervous.

  11. 11

    swampie said,

    Ah, I see that I need to edit that comment.

  12. 12

    swampie said,

    I love coal.

  13. 13

    kcduffy said,

    I’m laughing so hard at your edit the Spooky cat thinks I’ve gone crazier than usual! Thanks for that!!!

    Now, back to painting! At this rate, I should be done tomorrow around 3!

  14. 14

    Les Morrison said,

    Scientists who predict future events and conditions are like stock market analysts and sportscasters. They can tell you with certainty what happened yesterday and why, but when they base long range forecasts on short-term past or present data, their reliability is like that of gypsy fortune tellers. They should know better.

  15. 15

    Centurion said,

    On the whole horrible, brain-cancer causing flourescent “light”bulb how-its-really-much-better-for-the-“environment” (which doesn’t exist in the sense we think of it)-than-incandescents link:

    “Coal-fired power plants create tremendous amounts of inexpensive electricity for us but we now know that the tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide make a big contribution to global warming”

    Unproven. For each CO2 molecule you add to a climate system, the amount of light (and thus, heat) absorbed by each CO2 molecule goes down. This means the amount of warming that happens becomes much less per CO2 molecule.
    Evidently the CO2 in our atmosphere is so close to saturation point today that in the Ordovician period, with very similar temperature levels to what we have today, had above 10x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (4400 ppm compared to our 370 ppm.) Evidently 4030 ppm worth of CO2 on top of 370 ppm does not contribute a whole lot to warming. Though it may have acted as a nutrient, given the incredible diversity of light that lived then.

    As for mercury, having it in a low concentration spread throughout the biosphere is a lot better for EVERYONE than having it in small, and therefore high concentrations (even smaller when fluorescents are recycled) in our very HOMES and RIVERS.
    As any chemist knows, concentration is far more important than amount. A high concentration of dangerous chemicals will kill far more, even though it weakens far less, organisms than a low concentration of those chemicals.

    In fact, I agree to some degree with “Justin” (who commented on the article) saying:
    “John makes an interesting point, and one major hole in this whole comparison is the tremendous negative impact CFLs have on the environment as a result of having to mine for mercury or obtain it from elsewhere and that recycling can help prevent mercury from getting released back into the environment but also takes energy in itself.”

    And he didn’t even mention how China is involved. (And does no one care about China? In a few generations, we are going to be fighting a war with those socialist slave-drivers, yet we’re handing them how many quazillion bazillion industries in the fight against global warming?)

    Also, a little anecdote: Fluorescents are awful. I am currently, due to the high prices of private schooling (which caused my college-level high-school to go out of business, and that’s after draining the purse of our benefactor and founder), STUCK in that wonderful machine of propaganda and inefficiency that is our sovie—–er—–public school system, where food is gourmet cardboard and public bathrooms are not bathrooms but rather septic tanks. There are flourescents everywhere. In fact, if you are taking a test, there is only a 1% chance you are doing it in lighting other than natural lighting coming from that gift from heaven, the window (speaking of energy-efficiency.)

    You want to be energy efficient? Get a window, not a flourescent. But nope, the liberal world wants us to live in this super clean, super ideal paradise of white-washed halls, beautiful people, no disease, no morality, government pay-checks for EVERYONE, and above all, sterile blueish lighting, a world where every crisis is neatly swept up and we can all live happily ever after with absolutely no responsibility. Ultimately, that is a world where there is no such thing as human life.

  16. 16

    MickT said,

    We now have to call it “MichaelMannMade Glonal warming”

  17. 17

    Alan D said,

    Being a science buff, I’ve known for some time that we are about to enter another Ice Age. Although I don’t want us to pollute the air by improperly burning fossil fuels, we couldn’t possibly burn enough of the stuff to take the sting out of the imminent Ice Age.

    Long before we’re on the verge of running out of coal and crude oil in this world, we’ll have rendered the burning of these things nearly obsolete. Technological changes will see to that, as we gradually switch from fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy sources. We’ll all be driving fully-electric vehicles and powering our businesses and homes via an increasingly cleaner energy source by the end of the century. There’s no need to hurry the transition. It will occur via technological breakthroughs in energy-producing and storage technology with plenty of time to spare.

    I hope our future leaders will take the advice of honest, insightful scientists and realize that we’re in the latter stages of the “fossil fuel age” that will have done negligible harm to the planet when heating oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline are no longer produced because they are no longer needed. Coal burning will soon be a thing of the past as well.

  18. 18

    […] lead me to this Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core and I later found this What the Vostok Ice Core Data Says About Global Warming (and, More Importantly, Cooling) which appearently written by this guy you mentioned. Now I confess to not knowing this guys […]

  19. 19

    […] lead me to this Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core and I later found this What the Vostok Ice Core Data Says About Global Warming (and, More Importantly, Cooling) which appearently written by this guy you mentioned. Now I confess to not knowing this guys […]

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: