View Single Post
Oct25-08, 08:58 AM
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,460
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
Andre, what one can conclude from that plot is the following:

- grossly, CO2 levels follow temperature, with a lag of a few hundred years, in as much as the proxies used for that aren't cross-influenced themselves, and the time calibration is ok - I'm absolutely not qualified to look into that.
It's okay, it's data from abundantly peer reviewed literature and the logic seems okay too as oceans are extremely inert thermally, a few centuries is nothing,'s their interpretation not mine.

- it is not easy to find a dynamical model that explains one driving the other, except for that gross observation, but as you show, there doesn't seem to be any strong feedback coupling between both - we simply seem to have one variable grossly following the other one with a serious time lag, and this correlation is not there when looking at detailled small dynamics.
Right, but we do know the difference in dynamic responses between positive and negative feedback loops, with as shown lazy behavior of positive feedback loops, unwilling to change heading and move further away from the equilibrium (unstable) whereas negative feedback loops shows the opposite, with a trend to resist change and return to equilibrium (stable). This effect has been explored statistically in various ways by Olavi Kärner (one of the authors of the Independant Summary of Policy Makers). He invariably finds negative feedback which gives no support to the AGW hypothesis. His publications here. One might wonder why Naomi Oreskes did not find these studies.

It is also possible that both of them are part of a very much more complicated dynamical system, but without knowledge of other state variables, it will then be impossible to find any dynamical black box model, and even more difficult, any physical model describing causal relationships.
That's what I'm after the last couple of years and I bet my money on that. Unfortunately we have to sit out the AGW political ideology before we can progress again, as Richard Lindzen proposes here.