The explained the gap was explained by gappers was by saying that as temperature increased, the ocean’s ability to hold carbon dioxide decreased, thus releasing more C02 into the atmosphere. That mechanism makes sense to me, as well, but I’d like to look at the other one as well.

At some point in time the ocean saturates and then CO2 in the atmosphere starts to dominate. So it appears to lag the temperature rise but in reality doesn’t.

The recent rise in temperatures (1970s and on) could be a result of air travel – greenhouse gases being directly deposited into the upper atmosphere.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the “800 year gap” (which really is anywhere from 200-800) between the increase in temperature and CO2 levels. The common response, and one that is not satisfying to me, is that something caused the temperature to increase, and then the C02 helped it to continue (vice versa for the decrease). Looking at the other half’s side (solar rays and cloud formation), we get a wonderful match up until the early 70s when they completely branch off.

Trying to unite all the facts is what lead me to a dead end. I can’t imagine the extremely high correlation between solar activity and global temperature being a coincidence for as long as it was, and the currently accepted explanation for how C02 affects temperature seems very inconsistent with what historical data demonstrates. Of course it could be a very unique interaction that current models aren’t using (we aren’t anywhere near the severity predicted for 2010 from 10 years ago).

As you can see, I’m very torn on the issue. Part of me has even gone so far as to include a new mechanism into the fray. The solar activity proponents claim that extra solar activity decreases the amount of cloud-causing cosmic radiation, which would subsequently cool raise the temperature since more light would get through, however this idea falls apart in 1970s when the correlation leaves. However, the 1970s and onward saw the rise of satellite communication and increased electromagnetic radiation. Perhaps that has an affect on cloud cover….

Oh who knows? If you have better information on the 800 year gap, please share.

The graph you are referring to is actually a 160 year graph. To answer your question, there are a number of reasons for natural CO2 rise and fall, which we see in the graph above.

Each year the concentration of CO2 rises and drops with changes in the seasons, this is due to the fact that most of Earth’s vegetation is above the equator.

During the summer when plant life thrives the concentration drops, this is because the plants are “breathing” in the CO2, each fall as the vegetation dies off and decomposes some, (not all) of the sequestered CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Also, while the majority of plant life is dormant during the winter other processes which create CO2 have a change to “catch up”.

An excellent example of this seasonal trend can be found in the graph at http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html

Other contributing factors to the natural rise and fall levels of CO2 are solar. The earth revolves around the sun on an elliptical orbit and year to year, is a different distance away from the sun, also traveling on a slight polar to polar tilt. The difference between the distance between the sun and the earth on different years can cause more or less amounts of melting and thawing of CO2 trapped permafrost (as an example) and CO2 release.

Volcanic activity in the past has also played into these small “blips” in the overall model.

However, none of these natural occurring events explains the huge overall increase that you you spoke of. This increase is of course cause by humans increased fossil fuel / energy and goods creation and consumption.

Thanks John, I hope I was able to explain (I’m not a scientist) well enough to answer your question.

Adam
Other contributing factors to the increase of CO2 are of course humans burning of fossil fuels, primarily petroleum and coal, and natural volcanic activity.

I hope this isn’t too much info. Have a great weekend, see my links below for some additional reading if you are interested.

Thank you! Were would you be without me? Where you were before me, and where you will be after me. Making choices, setting priorities and changing the world in your own (very cool may I say) way.

For those who don’t know Cate, she is over at http://alternativelifestylesite.com

Adam

“In 1895, Svante Arrhenius (1896) followed with a
climate prediction based on greenhouse gases, suggesting that
a 40% increase or decrease in the atmospheric abundance of the
trace gas CO2 might trigger the glacial advances and retreats.
One hundred years later, it would be found that CO2 did indeed
vary by this amount between glacial and interglacial periods.
However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded
the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it .”

I fully concede that man affects the environment, you cant exist in a system without affecting it. ( Heisenberg anyone?)

They make a good case for Co2 levels having an effect in the climate system… saying to what degree is a bit more problematic. Others can read and decide for themselves, but at least the basic info is out there to read and look at.

Thanks for the link to the info and Good job voicing your beliefs. The end result of debate will be better understanding, and that is (I think) what both sides are really after.