Late CO2 and the Irish Series That Misses Global Climate

CO2 rose after heat: what it proves and what it doesn't

A study attributed to the Royal Society claims that temperature increases occurred before CO2 concentration rose. This is presented as definitive: if heat came first, CO2 couldn't be the cause. However, the sequence allows for another reading: when temperatures rise, vegetation activates and returns more CO2 to the atmosphere. Causality likely goes both ways.

This splits the issue into two fronts. Physically, we question what each series measures and with what precision. Economically, we ask who pays if this diagnosis becomes policy. The scientific debate uses thermometers and models, while the economic one uses prices, which are far more resolved.

Why might temperature rise before CO2?

The argument relies on correlation, which does not imply causation. Critics note that a documentary popularizing this thesis two decades ago faced similar objections, yet it is still shown in schools. The core issue is that attributing specific effects to CO2 requires controlled experiments, which are impossible with global climate.

The counterargument is direct: thermal increases trigger vegetation activity, releasing more CO2, and warmer water holds less dissolved gas. This order doesn't rule out human impact, only shifts when it's noticed.

Specific episodes are used by both sides: **accumulated snow in Beijing with lows of -12°C**, or twelve colder months in the US despite billions of tons of emissions. A harsh winter doesn't refute a trend, nor does a trend erase a winter.

The '99.9% of studies' and what they really say

This figure comes from a review of **88,125 reports** on global warming. A random sample of **3,000 papers** showed a distribution unlike the headline: 14% explicitly attributed climate change to humans, 15% implied it, and 70% mentioned human activity neither affirmatively nor negatively.

The methodological flaw is textbook: an article not discussing causes isn't denying them; assigning a stance by silence is incorrect. The original work was an essay by a science historian in an academic journal, with a real percentage of **97%**, not 99.9%. Several publications have since challenged these conclusions.

With this margin, 'science says' functions more as a conversation closer than an argument. In a field where variables can't be isolated, consensus is informative, not probative.

The Armagh thermometer and limits of historical records

Contrasting models is a measured series. The Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland records daily data with 0.1-degree precision since **1865** in a location with negligible heat island effect. Downloading its data reveals fluctuations over epochs, but no sustained temperature rise.

The fine print is debated. The record offers monthly highs and lows, and the average of extremes isn't the miccionan temperature. Moreover, Armagh is an urban core: small, but urban. A broader objection: **by 1870, much of the world lacked weather stations**, so any 'global temperature' figure from that era comes from models integrating uncertain, incomplete data. Key factors include solar activity cycles and orbital variations.

Water vapor and gases missing from headlines

The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor, rarely in public discourse. The Kyoto Protocol's global warming potential index excludes it, assuming rain returns it to the ground quickly.

A nearly ignored detail: **sulfur hexafluoride** has a warming potential 23,000 times that of CO2 and is present in substations worldwide. A one-liter leak equals 23,000 liters of CO2 in official accounting. Climate accounting has these asymmetries: it measures what it can.

The real business: carbon rights

Here, the diagnosis becomes concrete. The price of carbon rights —what a company pays to emit one ton of CO2— **started at about three euros** and has multiplied since. Companies pass costs to customers, and intermediaries trade permits that produce nothing.

The thesis here is simple: if the goal were purely environmental, the instrument would be different. Under current rules, decarbonization money flows through financial negotiation tables before industrial chimneys. The headline was foretold: 'We won't get out of this mess without a global carbon emissions market.'

---

The sticking point remains: how much of the projected 2°C global average increase responds to what. Historical series don't extend, models fill gaps, and policy is written before physics answers. That's the bottleneck, and with it, the bill.