Well.. I've read somewhere that weathering can speed up the absorption of CO2 by rocks.

Well... it doesn't jive with what we're surrently observing. Temperate increases with CO2 and the CO2 content and temperature of the ocean lags the atmosphere.

So what's right... the things we see happening in the front of our eyes, or the 100-year offset in the ice which is well within the noise band.

Do you realize that low-resolution data can never, ever produce high-resolution data, no matter how many filters you apply?

I will try to find a graph with error bars.

Oh, I found this wonderful set of data (yes I mean that!). It has no error bars, but good luck trying to connect the dots in figure one.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

So you honestly believe that you can draw conclusions with a resolution of 100 years from such data?

Despite this limitation, it's a nice data set for longer term trends don't you think?

Ah this one supplies error bars:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/

And this comments on how tricky the ice core data can be:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Have you seen the error bars on the ice core data? Seriously ...

Also, what relevance does an ice-age-driven climate have for the current situation where there are almost no glaciers.

Why do YOU keep insisting that it's nonsense to look further back to situations that are more similar to what we are in now, and what we will be in in the near future.

Just read this again (my previous post).

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx

It refers to a situation about 15 to 20 million years ago, when CO2 levels were 400 ppm like we have now.

The Earth was a different place then. Higher sea levels, higher temperatures.

That is what we are heading for. That is relevant to us.

Instead of nitpicking about +/- 50 ppm changes, try searching for bigger events and what it means for us.

You are too much reading into noise and details and tiny changes that may or may not be accurate or not. Noise is really terrible - you can have two people looking at the same data set, and they will draw a completely opposite conclusion.

Who knows... maybe CO2 actually lagged the temperature a little during the ice ages, when temperature was controlled more by the existence of glaciers and their cooling effect than anything else. But early studies showed that lag was 1,000 years. Newer studies showed it's at most 200 years. And there's still this uncertainty about mixing and a huuuuge error bar... so it may well be that future studies reduce this lag to zero. As far as I'm concerned, this difference is negligible on geological timescales. With natural processes, CO2 and temperature rise so slowly, that such a "lag" is hardly important. And what does the "lag" mean anyway ... a difference of 40ppm or something? How important is that difference really... I think it's little.

But how is that relevant to us now? It is not ... we have to look at models and our understanding of the physics of how CO2 traps heat.

The Milankovitch cycle operates on a timescale of thousands of years and during all that time there was a variation in CO2 of about 100 ppm. The current CO2 change of 100 ppm happened within 100 years, and the change is accelerating.

http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Milankovitch+cycle

It doesn't change the total amount of energy received in a year if you look at the whole earth... it just makes extremes somewhat extremer. The northern hemisphere might become colder than average, the southern hemisphere warmer. If conditions are right, a winter can get colder than average. I wonder if this relevant for global warming, which looks at temperatures at a global scale. It might explain how an ice age got triggered because the ice age is mainly triggered on the northern hemisphere... but according to models, we won't have to worry about that anymore, at 400 ppm (or even 300 ppm) the earth is too warm for an ice age.

This article says that the end of an ice age can trigger volcanism.

http://www.volcanolive.com/climate.html

This then leads to an increase in CO2 and accelerates the deglaciation.

Let's see... this article tries to show that Temperature lags CO2, like what common sense tells us.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

And it's discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/a-new-paper-in-nature-suggests-co2-leads-temperature-but-has-some-serious-problems/

This is a very nice description of what we're heading for:

https://sites.google.com/site/thepaleoceneeocenethermalmaxim/

An example from 55 million years ago, but it could happen again.

First this... the Death Valley can come later.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/german-super-volcano-erupt/

It doesn't have anything to do with global warming, but a super volcano under Germany???

Yes it's an amusing story

Fortunately there are also less biased ways of measuring temperatures:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HottestSpot/page2.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

Laacher See is to a super volcano what taking a piss while you exhale is to a thunderstorm.

The Daily Mail got punked, big time.

Edit:  I linked to an article on the Death Valley temperature history on the last page.

It's the perfect little lab rat for AGW.  Almost no water, and as a deep valley it's a pressure trap that greatly inhibits conduction.  It's got an all time high temperature of 134F in like 1913, hasn't broken 129F since.  Flat trend since the 50's.

Yes, temperatures in a narrow long valley, where air gets trapped and super-heated, is really representative of the rest of the world, especially the vast expanses of the oceans come in to mind ... and yes a 0.3 degree rise due to CO2 alone will make a next record almost a certainty ... very convincing indeed, can't wait to hear about the next record temperature ^^

You allowed a little peek under your skirt there, GeomanNL.  When it happens, it will be trumpeted as proof positive of AGW.  Guaranteed.  And it will happen.  Just like 'Super Storm' Sandy, which was anything but.  'Super' sounds so much... more than 'Tropical', though don't it?

Meanwhile...

Does anyone have any doubt that we will still be paying "green" tax when them implement the ice tax?

This shows how we've broken a cooling trend of the last 4,000 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

Rofl... from your article:

"

However a puzzle remains: climate models don’t seem to get this cooling trend over the last 5,000 years. Maybe they are underestimating the feedbacks that amplify the northern orbital forcing shown in Fig. 2. Or maybe the proxy data do not properly represent the annual mean temperature but have a summer bias – as Fig. 2 shows, it is in summer that the solar radiation has declined so strongly since the mid-Holocene. As Gavin has just explained very nicely: a model-data mismatch is an opportunity to learn something new, but it takes work to find out what it is.

But none of this matters because it's all mythical bullshit, compliments of a continually doctored temperature record.

All of this hinges on the belief that the planet has warmed a degree over the last century despite the complete lack of any such occurrence.  Unfortunately for the AGW crowd, they can't keep faking the current temperatures and no matter how much further down they adjust the ones a hundred years back, it's still going to be a downward trend for thirty plus years.

- Rising sea level. 

Been happening for tens of thousands of years, won't switch into reverse until the ice age starts back in.  Current trends are completely fucking normal.

- Rising sea acidity.

It's called marble, grind it up, pollute the oceans with it.  We use tons of the stuff for antacid.  Much of the acidification is  completely unrelated to atmospheric CO2 though.  Nitrogen fertilizers.

- Rising sea temperature.

Largely cyclical, probably just a function of the intensity of ENSO.  Our little blip of a record isn't even as long as the satellite records, useless for claiming otherwise.

- Lowering thermosphere temperature.

No shit, solar maximums and minimums have been decreasing over the course of our satellite record.  The damned thing collapses during the minimums, and expands back out during the maximums.  It's a direct corollary, CO2 is irrelevant.

- Changes in the spectra at the earth's surface and at the top of the troposphere.

This assumes, yet again, that the minor fluctuations in direct radiation loss, a small portion of a highly flexible overall system, will doom us all.  If, on the other hand, natural forcings have been radically underestimated by falsifying the past temperature record, it might be completely irrelevant.

- Retreating of glaciers.

Yeah, it's called an ice age.  We had one.  Permanent ice down to about where I live in the southern US, where you live was how many miles deep in the stuff?  Why would I get excited over yet another expected result of being in an interglacial...

- Thinning of the arctic ice.

Mythical bullshit, pure and simple.  The arctic ice thins off regularly.  There are records going back centuries, that disprove this nonsense about it being the first time it's ever happen.  It's nothing new, the northwest passage was clear before, you couldn't see ice from Russia, etcetera etcetera.  Old news to anyone that gets outside the highly insular and hilariously dishonest AGW bubble of information.

- Basic physics which relates CO2 to warming (which in turn is more or less proven by a wide diversity of paleo-records).

Or not, because it's a product of ocean temperatures rising and expelling the CO2, and not the other way around?  Just the minor issue of which came first.  They can't even model it, pretending it's proven is absurd.

- Record hot summers.

Yeah, the 30's were a real bitch.  The temperature record is a lie.  The dust bowl era has been erased.  It happened.  The severe droughts and high temperatures that beat our last heat wave are a matter of historic significance.  The official temperature record doesn't reflect it anymore.  Past temperatures have been reduced, to support the fiction that current temperatures are somehow extreme.  This irrefutable contradiction between the USHCN temperature record, and the physical reality of past temperatures puts the lie to the entire US surface station network.  If we're lying about ours, who else is?

.