This ought to be good for some personal abuse from the usual suspects, along with the odd spot of scientific gobledygook from the resident expert.  :D

From Realclimate, Mozz's favourite, biased, climate change site.

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.  And they say the skeptics mess with semantics...

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years.

All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend.   How many years of warming are they claiming we've had so far?  What are they claiming is causing it?

The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.  Riiiight...  could have.... as far as we can tell...  Don't you just love the exactness of this science?

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.  Uh-huh and the initial driver was?  Well whatever it was it wasn't man-made emissions.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.  Really?  How surprising.  Some of us have been saying this and been ridiculed for it.

Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.  So were these not caused by man-made emmissions?

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Wait for it...

Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm.  Hallelujah brother... and may the truth set you free...

This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later.  As Bob Carter another much maligned dissenter from the denialist/alarmist belief has been saying ad infinitum.

Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. Yet not only does it trap heat it also frees it as the Lidar research has shown.  But let's not mention that eh.

This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.  Yet another point the denialist/alarmist camp have been reticent to acknowledge.  CO2 DOES NOT INITIATE WARMINGS...  there is another PRIMARY DRIVER, or perhaps DRIVERS, which they earlier claimed was CURRENTLY UNKNOWN.  dear me could the science be imperfect?  Could climate be more complicated than we yet understand?  Then how can we claim to be able to control it?

From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.  Here we go...  model estimates...  well they've been reliable so far haven't they.  GIGO... that's the problem with models when we don't fully understand how climate works.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.  Really?  So is this storage and release less than man's contribution?  
Oh and lets not forget that right about now we are due for a natural increase in CO2...  due to the Medieval WARM period, which REALCLIMATE, AL GORE and MANN all left out of their calculations.  How INCONVENIENT.

Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established.

This old chestnut again? Once again, there are a few facts buried in there, but the conclusions are wrong.


Quote:

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.

Well that's quite accurate for most of the pre-industrial past. For it to initiate the warmings, you'd need something to release CO2 - you know - a bit like burning fossil fuels?

Now as far as I'm aware there was no advanced civilisation which burnt CO2 prior to man, so no initiators of CO2 release. No CO2 release - therefore no initiation.

The fact that CO2 acts as an amplifier is exactly the kind of confirmation that we need to show that when there is a release of CO2 there will be an amplified temperature response and the record tells us the extent of that amplification, and confirms a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Once again. Nobody is saying that prior to the advent of mankind CO2 was any kind of initiator.

So the entire post misrepresents the position taken by climate scientists.

You know what that's called?  - A strawman.

Quote:

Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego.

I'm sorry Muso...  But I didn't make it up.
It is apparently SCIENTIFIC FACT presented on the REALCLIMATE site... a site that advocates with quite some bias actually YOUR POV re climate change.  ;D ;D ;D

Oh and the only strawman Muso is your dismissive reply that seems to have missed just about all the argument presented.  Oh dear how unusual is that eh.  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

muso wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 9:07am:

The fact that CO2 acts as an amplifier is exactly the kind of confirmation that we need to show that when there is a release of CO2 there will be an amplified temperature response and the record tells us the extent of that amplification, and confirms a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2....

... if there is already warming for other reasons. Isn't that what amplification means? It certainly does not mean 'initiate' or 'induce' warming/change/cooling. CO2 does not set anything in motion.


WHere does that the initial impetus come from then, for the current change? WHat is the cause of the change that CO2 amplifies?

Gee thanks Soren, that has solved everything, the CO2 does not create the heat, it merely amplifies it.

Next time you play some music remember that, the amplifier doesn't create the music, it just makes it louder.

Thanks for enlightening me, I thought I had a whole heap of mini musicians living in my stereo.

Your question amounts to asking who turned up the volume, and the answer that science is telling you is that we did, but you keep refusing to believe that.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 1:00pm:

Quote: Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus Professor of Geosciences Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego. I'm sorry Muso...  But I didn't make it up. It is apparently SCIENTIFIC FACT presented on the REALCLIMATE site... a site that advocates with quite some bias actually YOUR POV re climate change.  ;D ;D ;D Oh and the only strawman Muso is your dismissive reply that seems to have missed just about all the argument presented.  Oh dear how unusual is that eh.  ;D ;D ;D  ::)

The problem I had was with the comments you added. As I said, what is written there makes sense, it's just that it doesn't click with you.

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:07am: The fact that CO2 acts as an amplifier is exactly the kind of confirmation that we need to show that when there is a release of CO2 there will be an amplified temperature response and the record tells us the extent of that amplification, and confirms a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.... ... if there is already warming for other reasons. Isn't that what amplification means? It certainly does not mean 'initiate' or 'induce' warming/change/cooling. CO2 does not set anything in motion. WHere does that the initial impetus come from then, for the current change? WHat is the cause of the change that CO2 amplifies?

As the article correctly states, the initial impetus is from:


Quote:

Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica

As has been stated time and time again, the Milankovich Cycle factors were the main initiators in the past - in other words slow solar variation.  We know perfectly well the solar output has not fluctuated to any great extent over the more recent period.

Now, as FD rightly pointed out, there is an equilibrium between temperature and CO2.  If you increase one, the other will rise.

Many of the so-called skeptic sites use a mixture of factual data and distortion.

I'm glad to see Grendel quoting from a reputable site for a change. It's encouraging. It's a relatively small step from there to actually understanding how it works.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 2:35pm:

Gee thanks Soren, that has solved everything, the CO2 does not create the heat, it merely amplifies it. Next time you play some music remember that, the amplifier doesn't create the music, it just makes it louder. Thanks for enlightening me, I thought I had a whole heap of mini musicians living in my stereo. Your question amounts to asking who turned up the volume, and the answer that science is telling you is that we did, but you keep refusing to believe that.

So what's the initiator of the current changes? It's not CO2.

Pst, Mozz - your amplifier does not make the music. Sorry, I know you are shocked. But it gets worse: it's not even your stereo that made the music.
Have a quick lie down, you must be shattered.  ;)

To stay with your analogy, if that's easier to understand - We turned up the volume of WHAT?

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

muso wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 9:07am: The fact that CO2 acts as an amplifier is exactly the kind of confirmation that we need to show that when there is a release of CO2 there will be an amplified temperature response and the record tells us the extent of that amplification, and confirms a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.... ... if there is already warming for other reasons. Isn't that what amplification means? It certainly does not mean 'initiate' or 'induce' warming/change/cooling. CO2 does not set anything in motion. Where does that the initial impetus come from then, for the current change? WHat is the cause of the change that CO2 amplifies?

Soren - You are very close to understanding. I'm impressed. Let's look at it step-wise:

1. In the past, temperatures rise for all kinds of reasons, mainly solar fluctuations and orbital variations - tilt, orbital eccentricity that kind of thing.  This was a relatively slow process.

2. The extra heat releases CO2 from (mainly) the ocean.
3. The CO2 added to the atmosphere amplifies the temperature rise (the temperature rise also increases average moisture content of the atmosphere adding to the amplification)

- Note - That process (3) is what's meant by amplification.

Let's suppose that the CO2 was released from fossil fuel combustion, do you think that exactly the same compound would have exactly the same effect? (warming) - think about it.

Does that make sense to you?

What you are suggesting is that as far as you know there would be a steady state climate equilibrium if CO2 was kept steady and so whatever warming is occuring is because the extra CO2 is amplifying the otherwise unchanging climate.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 5:13am:

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.  Really?  How surprising.  Some of us have been saying this and been ridiculed for it.

Grendel,

Read my Reply 3 on the sticky thread. I posted it back in June July last year:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247904929



Quote:

Over the 800,000 years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

Now, was that stating that other factors apart from CO2 have caused temperature rise?

We're talking about two separate timescales and two separate time periods.

1. The pre-industrial period - 600,000 years give or take a few.

and

2. The past 50 years (or 150 if you prefer)

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:

What you are suggesting is that as far as you know there would be a steady state climate equilibrium if CO2 was kept steady and so whatever warming is occuring is because the extra CO2 is amplifying the otherwise unchanging climate.

Soren, the climate is never totally unchanging, but you're close.

What I'm saying is that  over a relatively short period of time (like the past 50 years - or 150 years - take your pick), any climate variation due to Solar variation has been relatively insignificant in the scheme of things. Any variation due to large stratospheric volcanoes has been of  short-term duration and provided a relatively minor perturbation.

The main effect has been due to the increasing CO2 emissions, and other greenhouse gases including methane and nitrous oxide (in order of importance - ie concentration and GHP). These GHG emissions come primarily from combustion processes involving fuels that contain carbon, but also from the clearing of Tropical rainforest and cement production. (Bake calcium carbonate - limestone - and it releases CO2.)  

Does that make sense so far?

SO the bottom line is that without human CO2 emission, the climate graph would have been relatively flat for the last 50 or 150 years, take your pick, as solar and volcanic variations or data collection variations have been relatively insignificant for those periods and the effects of other possible climate influences can be discounted.


How did the earth respond to past increases of CO2?

I am particularly fond of this old denialist war horse. I like it because it is lifted from the earliest enhanced greehouse effect theories put together by climate researches back in the 1970s, perhaps earlier. Deniers simple quote the positive warming feedback part of the theory but leave out the first, rather crucial, bit about the current warming having been initiated by increased CO2 levels directly.

The problem for deniers is that unless they are very careful to also excise the feedback effects of carbon itself, they end up implicity accepting that CO2 causes warming, and this is what has happened once again today in this very thread.

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 4:43pm:

SO the bottom line is that without human CO2 emission, the climate graph would have been relatively flat for the last 50 or 150 years, take your pick, as solar and volcanic variations or data collection variations have been relatively insignificant for those periods and the effects of other possible climate influences can be discounted. How did the earth respond to past increases of CO2?

I'll rephrase that so that the question is more relevant if you don't mind.

How did the earth respond to past increases of CO2  of similar magnitude and rate of change( to that predicted for the end of the century)?

Do you want me to answer that question?

ROTFLMAO

I'm sorry but you guys are sooooo  funny.

Talk about running around in complete denial.



Quote:

The problem I had was with the comments you added. As I said, what is written there makes sense, it's just that it doesn't click with you.

Nothing wrong with my comments actually... accept your inability to comprehend Muso.  My thoughts are also shared by others that have been studying climate longer than you.  The question is when is it going to CLICK WITH YOU.

Mozz...  I'll try to keep it simple so you can keep your analogy.  How much have we turned up the volume?  Clue..  look at the percentage of man-made emissions compared to the total.  Now you can relax and stop panicking.  

Pooella...  I'm sure I already made it clear but the argument is supplied by REALCLIMATE, not me.  Now go and make your titanic contributions on a subject your better equipped for.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

Clue..  look at the percentage of man-made emissions compared to the total.  Now you can relax and stop panicking.

I don't hold your level of knowledge on this subject in very high regard, but I am surprised that your understanding is this poor. Comparing the human contribution of carbon in the atmosphere to the total is not the point. The point is the effect the additional contribution has on the biospheric carbon cycle.

An analogy: suppose you have carefully measured out the correct volume of automatic transmission fluid for your high perfomance vehicle. Let's say you need 9 litres. Then I come along and put an extra litre in. Your transmission catches fire and you blame me. But Ahh, I say, only put in 10% of the total. That's insignificant.

Having said that, and Muso, feel free to correct me, I believe the human contribution to atmospheric carbon is 35% to 45%. Not insignificant, though not the point, in any case.


Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

Pooella...  I'm sure I already made it clear but the argument is supplied by REALCLIMATE, not me.

That the article came from realclimate is not in dispute. The issue is that it doesn't say what you think it says. Muso cannot have possibly made that any more clear.

I think you ought to change your catchphrase. May I suggest RBFIFPSMT? Rocking back and forth in the foetal position sucking my thumb. Which is what I suspect you are up to in between bouts of ROTF and LYAO.

The bottom line is that denialists are likely the religious extremists, they are searching for validation where it does not exist.

I remember seeing this US news guy on a youtube clip saying he had evidence that would make atheists accept god.
He was a totall freakin loon and had no evidence of anything, but he sincerely, and very passionately believed he had nailed an incontrivertible argument that jesus is god.

You cannot reason with such people, they do not work from a basis of reason, like the "thicky" in the clip muso posted, thanks btw, it was very funny, you just have to try and stop them being so goddamned proud of their thicknicity.

You guys are a  joke honestly...   ::)

What I was getting at Grendel is the same point I make over and over, I have to trust experts on some things that are beyond my expertise, and the intricacies of climate most certainly are, so I take the avice of the overwhelming majority whose arguments always appear the most cogent, and are backed by the best bottom line we have, which is a pascall's wager of sorts for the planet, rather than some make believe afterlife.

Even if they are absolutely wrong, the worst thing that happens is we leave behind for future generations, a better planet anyway.

Denialists only argument against this is the whole New World Order Conspiracy theory, and I just do not buy that crap, and no self respecting skeptic does.

Quote:

Denialists only argument against this is the whole New World Order Conspiracy theory, and I just do not buy that crap, and no self respecting skeptic does.

Which continues to show how totally ignorant, close-minded  and biased you are about the subject.  You ignore the dissenting scientific opinion and crap on about conspiracy theories, oblivious to what the other side is actually saying.  Creating your own distorted version of the dissent to validate your own belief.  Pathetic.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 9:55pm:

You ignore the dissenting scientific opinion and crap on about conspiracy theories, oblivious to what the other side is actually saying.

Gee, and I thought we'd been posting detailed, accurate and substantiated replies to the anti-AGW theories you and soren lorenson have been posting.

But all we seem to get from Beogrendel is:


Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:

You guys are a  joke honestly...

Such wit. Such talent!

yawnn   kinda repetitive ridicule even for a stalker.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

What I was getting at Grendel is the same point I make over and over, I have to trust experts on some things that are beyond my expertise, and the intricacies of climate most certainly are, so I take the avice of the overwhelming majority whose arguments always appear the most cogent, and are backed by the best bottom line we have, which is a pascall's wager of sorts for the planet, rather than some make believe afterlife.

You like saying this, Mozz, but in fact you take advice from no expert and read and digest no arguments presented in scientific forums.

You, like almost everyone else in this issue, get your bearings exclusively from non-experts: newspapers, magazines, the internet - in short, the mass media.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 10:51pm:

yawnn   kinda repetitive ridicule even for a stalker.

No dude, this is repetitive:

Quote:

yawn

Not to mention:

Quote:

ROFLMAO

If you stop posting unsubstantiated denial drivel, I'll stop stalking you.

Ah, soren. Glad you've stuck around. Look I know this is from the other thread and all, but you seem to be avoiding me in that one ... can't think why. Anyway, where were we? Ah, yes. That's right:


Paella wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 1:29am:

Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real? Lindzen certainly does.

Paella wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 11:48pm:

Ah, soren. Glad you've stuck around. Look I know this is from the other thread and all, but you seem to be avoiding me in that one ... can't think why. Anyway, where were we? Ah, yes. That's right: Paella wrote on Apr 12th, 2010 at 1:29am: Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real? Lindzen certainly does.

No

Lindzen is a well known for his views on global warming and a critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to climate alarmism.  In a 2007 interview on the Larry King Show, Lindzen said of global warming alarmism:

Quote:

“      "we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

     
In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen points out that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and concludes that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were...


Quote:

"...based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc. Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."

You don't seem to be getting much if anything right Pooella.

Very good soren lorenson. So why would you be quoting Lindzen as an authority, when his line is "AGW is occurring, but it's not as bad as most scientists say", when your line is "AGW is not happening at all".

Grendel has missed the point (again). I am aware of what Lindzen says. My point is that what he says is not consistent with what soren is saying. Soren denies AGW is real. Lindzen does not: he just says it not so bad. Soren can't have it both ways.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html



That to me is eminently sensible.

Well if any body wants to see some very beautiful images, as well as being quite disturbing in relation to the pace of Ice Flow Retreat, then another TED Talk worth watching is linked here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Now he started his talk by saying he was originally a skeptic about global warming, but his passion for Ice Photography put him in places where the pace of change was so dramatic that he looked more deeply into the issues and changed his position.

When he realised that 95% of the world's glaciers are retreating he reappraised his ideas and when he found that Climate Change was based on real earth measurements, not just on computer modelling, as he had previously been led to believe, he left his skepticism behind.

He wanted others to be able to grasp what he had been seeing in his photos, and so setup a series of time lapse cameras around some prominent glaciers, and the TED Talk shows the results of that.

In just one case, he has footage of a chunk of ice miles wide breaking off over a 75 minute period, which is quite remarkable to see.

What a hypocrite...
so some guy who takes photos is now an expert on global warming and climate change?

You keep missing the point Mozz...   ::)  no one is denying there have been rises in temperatures, just the mechanisms driving them, the long term effects and what we should and can do about them.

Poobaby...  as usual you miss the point too.  How unusual.  ::)

No beo, my point is pretty straightforward. Soren says AGW does not exist. His (and yours too now, it seems) new hero Lindzen says that it does.

One of them is wrong. Is it really so hard for you to see this?

Soren,

Do you want me to answer the rephrased question?

Paella wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:40pm:

Lindzen says that it (AGW) does.

Where, in that article from the Washington Post, did he say that?

muso wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 5:10pm:

Soren, Do you want me to answer the rephrased question?

Which / whose question was rephrased? how?

As always - yes please but only if you can convey the logic/concept of it first. Leave the details for/when they are needed.

Pooella has a black and white problem... your either with Poobaby all the way or you are against Poobaby.

Still waiting for that Linzden quote in context Pooe.

I suppose that acknowledging that man creates CO2 and hence adds to the amount of it in the atmosphere means that he also contributes to warming...  

Unfortunatley Pooella has severe contextual problems.

See the other thread.

just did...  doesn't back up alarmist propaganda one little bit.

In fact it backs up exactly what I said, my thoughts on the subject and what Lindzen actually meant.

All of which has little to do with the 800 year lag.

This conversation involving soren and I has no relevance to this thread, beo.

(Whereas any conversation between yourself and anyone has no relevance to anything.)

I only raised it here because soren was ignoring the other thread. See the other one.

Once more for the slow of wit: T h e   o t h e r   t h r e a d.

That was you in the parking fine video wasn't it?

der...  I know what you did...  you stalk everyone apparently.

But as usual amidst the personal ridicule and crap you fail to understand anything.

T-H-E  O-T-H-E-R  T-H-R-E-A-D.

(And it's a hundred and sixty-five pounds you stupid f*ing woman!)

muso wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 4:43pm: SO the bottom line is that without human CO2 emission, the climate graph would have been relatively flat for the last 50 or 150 years, take your pick, as solar and volcanic variations or data collection variations have been relatively insignificant for those periods and the effects of other possible climate influences can be discounted. How did the earth respond to past increases of CO2? I'll rephrase that so that the question is more relevant if you don't mind. How did the earth respond to past increases of CO2  of similar magnitude and rate of change( to that predicted for the end of the century)? Do you want me to answer that question?

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:

As always - yes please but only if you can convey the logic/concept of it first. Leave the details for/when they are needed.

I think I answered it once before when talking about the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Let me see if I can dig it out.

The key features were mass extinctions, mass release of methane from sea-bed clathrates, accompanied by a warming of around 6 degrees.

Once again:

In geological history there have been occasions where sharp rises in temperature were initiated and driven by large spikes in greenhouse gases, similar to the fossil fuel emissions spike of today. The Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is an example.

Roughly 55 million years ago, ocean pH levels dropped drastically (specifically due to CO2, as attested by sediment analysis) and global temperatures rapidly rose over 5 degrees. The resolution of available proxy records indicates that this occurred in a period of time no longer than 5000 years. It's not possible to know if it happened even faster. It could have. The likely cause was massive releases of methane from the ocean floors, perhaps due to some smaller warming or changes in sea level. It took over 100,000 years for the ocean, atmosphere, and temperatures to return to their previous state. The result was a mass extinction event that took millions of years to recover from.

Another example was the massive volcanic eruption of the Deccan traps around the end of the Cretaceous Period (around 65 billion years ago).  This was a basaltic eruption of massive proportions (a sizeable part of India). It released vast quantities of CO2, but no significant levels of particulates or SO2. Basaltic eruptions tend to be much less violent than Acid (eg Rhyolitic) volcanoes (such as Mt Pinatubo). The lava is much more liquid (less viscous) and there is no pressure build up and subsequent explosion, as is associated with the latter.

Quote:

The key features were mass extinctions, mass release of methane from sea-bed clathrates, accompanied by a warming of around 6 degrees.

 muso

I guess that this makes the recently published report in Nature about methane releases more bad news then.
This will be more evidence denialists either ignore or claim is fraudulently manipulated.
The way they characterise scientists seems to put them somewhere between Pol Pot and Caligula in the personal ethics stakes, whereas I would put Denialists squarely in the Nero camp, keep fiddling boys.

From NATURE: link below.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.22.html


Quote:

The amount of methane being released from permafrost in the Siberian Arctic could rival that being vented from the entire world ocean, suggests new research. The study confirms what scientists have suspected for some time — that substantial quantities of the potent greenhouse gas are being released from sub-sea sites as the Arctic warms.

Go to the link for the full story, it is not good news.

I really wish the denialists had some facts on their side, we all do.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:23am:

I really wish the denialists had some facts on their side, we all do.

You mean speculation:

The amount of methane being released from permafrost in the Siberian Arctic could rival that being vented from the entire world ocean, suggests new research. The study confirms what scientists have suspected for some time — that substantial quantities of the potent greenhouse gas are being released from sub-sea sites as the Arctic warms.

If you can bring yourself to actually look a a scientific source that is not sponsored by Exxon, then lash out and see what a real science journal looks like, click on the link, read the article, the worst thing that can happen is you may learn something you did not already "believe". ;)

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 7:22am:

Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established.

Just in case anyone didn't get this, I will rephrase.

Higher temperatures can cause natural GHG emissions. GHG emissions (whether natural or unnatural) cause temperature increases. The truth of one does not invalidate the other. They are both true. Thus, the fact that in the past GHG concentrations lagged temperature does not mean anything by itself.

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 7:22am: Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established. Just in case anyone didn't get this, I will rephrase. GHG emissions (whether natural or unnatural) cause temperature increases.

Can we have an example of this in climate history?


My undesrtanding is that GHGs preserve warmth, like a blanket, they do not cause warming. You can put a brick in pur CO2, it will NEVER warm up. GHGs in themselves cause nothing.



Just in case anyone didn't realise this...

The sun causes the warmth. Greenhouse gases retain a portion of it in the atmosphere. We all know that. But you are suggesting that the percentage of retention is somehow hard wired in to the atmosphere, and is thus absolute. What nonsense! Obviously, the forcing rate can change, will change, and has changed as the composition of the atmosphere changes. To suggest that it can't is ridiculous, and there is defintively no evidence in support of it.

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 7:22am: Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established. Just in case anyone didn't get this, I will rephrase. GHG emissions (whether natural or unnatural) cause temperature increases. Can we have an example of this in climate history? My undesrtanding is that GHGs preserve warmth, like a blanket, they do not cause warming. You can put a brick in pur CO2, it will NEVER warm up. GHGs in themselves cause nothing. Just in case anyone didn't realise this...

Of course. I didn't think that needs explaining. Increasing the GHG concentration in the atmosphere will cause it to warm up, even though the ultimate source of the heat is external. That is why they call them greenhouse gasses.

You don't need to try to untangle climate history to get at this. It can be verified via repeatable experiment, which is a far higher standard.

Soren wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 7:22am: Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established. Just in case anyone didn't get this, I will rephrase. GHG emissions (whether natural or unnatural) cause temperature increases. Can we have an example of this in climate history? My undesrtanding is that GHGs preserve warmth, like a blanket, they do not cause warming. You can put a brick in pur CO2, it will NEVER warm up. GHGs in themselves cause nothing. Just in case anyone didn't realise this...

Your understanding is slightly flawed. In a nutshell (this is simplifying it quite a bit)

Greenhouse gases "reflect" radiation coming from the Earth and stop it from being lost into space (there is your primary cause). This causes the Earth's temperature to be higher than it would be without greenhouse gases. The name for this is the "greenhouse effect."

Most greenhouse gases are natural - water vapor is the most common, and causes most of the greenhouse effect on Earth. Other greenhouse gases in order of importance are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. A natural greenhouse effect is not bad. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be 15 to 30 degrees Celsius colder, and life would probably not be possible here.

It follows that if we add more Greenhouse gases, that retained heat increases even more and the average global temperature increases.

In a nutshell, we (the world's population) are adding too much more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This has caused the planet's average temperature to rise. The most important greenhouse gas that humans add to the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, of which there is much less then 1% in the atmosphere, but after water vapour, it's still the most important Greenhouse gas that we emit. We can quantify the warming effect very easily.

And as we've said before, increasing the CO2 will lead to additional heat capture, and increasing the temperature will increase global moisture content thus amplifying the warming effect.

Carbon dioxide is released when people burn fossil fuels, like oil, coal, and natural gas. It's also released when we breath, but the latter is an insignificant amount.

You could think of this analogy. On a cold day, you put on a teeshirt. You feel warmer. If you put on a jumper on top of that, it causes you to be even warmer - possibly too warm. Adding the jumper is a bit like like increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere..

mozzaok wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 11:23am:

muso I guess that this makes the recently published report in Nature about methane releases more bad news then.

Yes. The Global Warming potential of Methane is around about 25 times that of CO2 on a 100 year horizon.

So tell me something I don't understand Muso...  ::)

Quote:

NARRATION That may not be far along the earth’s surface, but after a hundred kilometres straight up, the atmosphere runs out and space begins. More than three-quarters of our planet’s air mass, and most of its weather, is in the lowest 10 kilometres, the troposphere. It gets colder with altitude... Until it hits the second layer, the stratosphere, where the opposite happens. The higher you go, the warmer it gets, as the ozone layer here absorbs UV radiation. Andrew Klekociuk By about 50 kilometres, the temperatures are similar to what we have near the surface. But the pressures are extremely low. The density of the atmosphere is about one ten-thousandth that at sea level. NARRATION After 50 kilometres, the next layer is the mesosphere, and the temperature starts dropping again. By 85 kilometres, the top of the mesosphere is the coldest place on earth. The density of the upper atmosphere is so low that carbon dioxide actually radiates heat away into space, rather than trapping it. Andrew Klekociuk Paradoxically, it’s the upper atmosphere that’s cooling in response to greenhouse warming.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2867591.htm

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:11am:

So tell me something I don't understand Muso...  ::)

Well, if you understand that,  what's your problem?

I don't have a problem...  alarmists do.

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 10:57am:

In a nutshell, we (the world's population) are adding too much more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This has caused the planet's average temperature to rise.

According to one theory. But this theory is tentative because even though ...


Quote:

The most important greenhouse gas that humans add to the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, of which there is much less then 1% in the atmosphere,

 there are many other factors impacting on climate. Within GHGs, which are one such factor, water vapour is far more significant because it is far more abundant ands effective than any other GHG. But of course GHGs do not a climate make and so doubling one minor GHG to 0.5 % not a climate change make - according to another theory, I hasten to add, lest I am accused of being something nasty.

Don't be too hard on Muso Soren, he's working in a nutshell and trying to keep things simple so he's picked one Greenhouse Gas out of all the atmospheric gases, then decided that the small part of that that man produces is  to blame for global temperature rises even though it doesn't initiate the temperature change and doesn't rise in concentration till 800 years after the "unknown" temperature driver has been active.

At least that's what I think he's doing.

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:35am:

muso wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 10:57am: In a nutshell, we (the world's population) are adding too much more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This has caused the planet's average temperature to rise. According to one theory. But this theory is tentative because even though ... Quote: The most important greenhouse gas that humans add to the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, of which there is much less then 1% in the atmosphere,    there are many other factors impacting on climate. Within GHGs, which are one such factor, water vapour is far more significant because it is far more abundant ands effective than any other GHG. But of course GHGs do not a climate make and so doubling one minor GHG to 0.5 % not a climate change make - according to another theory, I hasten to add, lest I am accused of being something nasty.

Don't you believe that water vapour concentration in air increases as temperature increases?

Climate is reasonably complex, yes, and there are many other factors impacting on climate - yes, but we're talking about one variable in climate - that of global mean temperature.  

- and tell me. Do you actually agree with Grendel's post ? (Reply 58)

I'd be interested for you to expand on that if you do, and take it to its logical conclusion.

I'd be interested in you expanding on it, in a non-biased way.  Which may be impossible for you.  ::)

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

Don't you believe that water vapour concentration in air increases as temperature increases?

I believe!

I can tell whether it will be cold at dawn simply by checking out the cloud cover during the night. How about that? Clever, what?



Quote:

Climate is reasonably complex, yes, and there are many other factors impacting on climate - yes, but we're talking about one variable in climate - that of global mean temperature.

I am sorry, I can never follow non-deniers (nice?) when they switch from 'one variable' CO2 induced AGW  to climate change to sea levels and glaciers, to acidification, wild weather, future catastrophy through tipping point of no return already reached to desertification and back to mere warming.

At any rate, the only variable you ever talk about is CO2. You mention others only to discount them. You treat CO2 as if it was the 'one ring to rule them all'. For a topic like climate that is at least 'reasonably complex', this is monomania.



Quote:

- and tell me. Do you actually agree with Grendel's post ? (Reply 58) I'd be interested for you to expand on that if you do, and take it to its logical conclusion.

What, do you want me to do your arguing for you now? I meet you half way - I wholeheartedly agree with the "At least that's what I think he's doing" bit. Fair enough?

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 2:26pm:

What, do you want me to do your arguing for you now? I meet you half way - I wholeheartedly agree with the "At least that's what I think he's doing" bit. Fair enough?

Now that response rivals Kevin Rudd's diplomacy skills  ;D  

- which may not be saying too much.

I agree that it summarises what Grendel thinks I'm doing   ;D

muso wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 3:30pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 16th, 2010 at 2:26pm: What, do you want me to do your arguing for you now? I meet you half way - I wholeheartedly agree with the "At least that's what I think he's doing" bit. Fair enough? Now that response rivals Kevin Rudd's diplomacy skills  ;D

Do you think I'm humble too?

:D

Grendel wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 11:11am:

So tell me something I don't understand Muso...  ::) Quote: NARRATION That may not be far along the earth’s surface, but after a hundred kilometres straight up, the atmosphere runs out and space begins. More than three-quarters of our planet’s air mass, and most of its weather, is in the lowest 10 kilometres, the troposphere. It gets colder with altitude... Until it hits the second layer, the stratosphere, where the opposite happens. The higher you go, the warmer it gets, as the ozone layer here absorbs UV radiation. Andrew Klekociuk By about 50 kilometres, the temperatures are similar to what we have near the surface. But the pressures are extremely low. The density of the atmosphere is about one ten-thousandth that at sea level. NARRATION After 50 kilometres, the next layer is the mesosphere, and the temperature starts dropping again. By 85 kilometres, the top of the mesosphere is the coldest place on earth. The density of the upper atmosphere is so low that carbon dioxide actually radiates heat away into space, rather than trapping it. Andrew Klekociuk Paradoxically, it’s the upper atmosphere that’s cooling in response to greenhouse warming. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2867591.htm

That's all true, but I don't know why you posted it.

Soren wrote on Apr 16^th, 2010 at 2:26pm:

At any rate, the only variable you ever talk about is CO2. You mention others only to discount them. You treat CO2 as if it was the 'one ring to rule them all'. For a topic like climate that is at least 'reasonably complex', this is monomania.

Which other variables have I discounted?

I think we've discussed all the variables.  What we're talking about is very specific - What are  the effects of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases and clearing mainly tropical rainforest?

You stated that CO2 is 'just' a minor greenhouse gas. Well it isn't - it's the second most important greenhouse gas overall after water vapour , and we've already agreed that it doesn't matter how much water vapour we put into the atmosphere, because it will just drop out as precipitation.

In fact, most of the change that's occurring is happening in a specific part of the upper atmosphere. At that particular altitude, the air is very dry, and CO2 takes over as the most important greenhouse gas. So in terms of changing temperature, CO2 is the most important variable. It's actually more complex than that. Once you get really high in the atmospheric column, some of the re-emitted infrared is transmitted into space, but a fair proportion is also emitted towards the earth. It's a very subtle effect, but it is understood.


The main factor that controls water vapour concentration is temperature.  You've already agreed with that.

Therefore the next biggest greenhouse gas in terms of effect is CO2, followed by methane, then Nitrous oxide.  Do you agree with that?

What other variables are you interested in? All the heat ultimately comes from the Sun, and the temperature increase is determined by two main factors - the incoming heat from the sun, and the outgoing blackbody radiation from the Earth. These two factors control the heat balance.

I'm sure you've seen the attached figure before. It shows the extent of the forcings, including natural and anthropogenic.

Now the solar irradiance plus all the other factors combined have actually led to a slight net decrease in forcing as you can see from the figure.

The radiated longwave radiation has also decreased over the last few decades, and we know why. Why do you think that is?  

So nobody is saying that it's just CO2, except for the strawman that you have constructed.

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but somebody made the comment that the forcing equation might hold under laboratory conditions. Basically the radiative forcing equation only applies specifically to the atmosphere. I could explain how it's derived, or provide a link, but I doubt if it would be of any benefit to do so. It's dependent on the structure of the atmosphere at different altitudes. Let's leave it at that.

The fact that you believe that it only applies in a laboratory speaks volumes.  

To answer the question - how much of the warming was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a difficult one because of the amplifying effect of water vapour (as we've discussed ad nauseum)

If we take the total natural forcings, as I said before, you get a slight decrease over the last 50 years or so. So the actual warming contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a tad more than 100%.

We should also remember that a fair whack of the CO2 ends up in the ocean too. The effect we have seen takes that into account.

---

yet the 800 year lag still remain...  ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 10:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 13th, 2010 at 7:22am: Grendel a positive feedback loop can be driven by any one of it's components. The fact that nature has tended to drive on side does not mean it is impossible for humans to drive the other. That's why they call it anthropogenic. The causative relationship between GHGs and temperature is well established. Just in case anyone didn't get this, I will rephrase. Higher temperatures can cause natural GHG emissions. GHG emissions (whether natural or unnatural) cause temperature increases. The truth of one does not invalidate the other. They are both true. Thus, the fact that in the past GHG concentrations lagged temperature does not mean anything by itself.

I think you'll find timing is everything fd.

muso wrote on Apr 19^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Which other variables have I discounted?

I dunno - how about the most important one?


Quote:

You stated that CO2 is 'just' a minor greenhouse gas. Well it isn't - it's the second most important greenhouse gas overall after water vapour , and we've already agreed that it doesn't matter how much water vapour we put into the atmosphere, because it will just drop out as precipitation.

But, you see, that's how the bloody thing works.

Water wapour is the most important, by the way, not just by a nose but by a level of magnitude. But somehow, with teh most impotrtant GHG there is a magical or banal balancing going on.
Not so with out evil progeny, CO2.
With the second most important GHG, there is no balancing, apparently, magical or banal. CO2 is rampant. Small it may be by comparison but golly, is it a loose cannon? It it is UNCONTROLLABLE, much like the human blight on this blue planet. CO2 has our evil disposition, don't you see. Other GHGs play ball, rub along, fall out of the sky on cue - but not our representative in the atmosphere. No, siree.  The human emissary in the atmosphere is as deadly as we are on this earth. CO2 is humanity writ GHG.

And so on, ad nauseum.
Muso, you are projecting.

Hey muso, could you explain how the amount of CO2 that the oceans can effectively store, comes into the equation?

I had read somewhere that how much CO2 the oceans can absorb is dependent on temperature and pressure to some extent.

Also I have read that atmospheric concentrations have been around 280ppm for CO2  in the timeframe that humans have been around at least, with much larger variations before the planet could support human life

So is the concentration of CO2 in the oceans, and the atmosphere normally linked, where one helps to balance the other to a certain degree?
Also, if that is the case, and we now see circumstances where the give and take of CO2 from water to atmosphere is deviating from the traditional 800 year "lag" cycle we would expect, is there any commonly held ideas on what is likely to happen as both ocean and atmospheric CO2 levels rise?

I apologise if these are dumb questions, but unlike most of you guys, I have very little experience in science beyond what I learned up until I was 15 years old, and therefore rely a lot on what you guys can teach me.

You must admit, Mozz, that this 'I'm open, teach me' kinda stance is fairly recent. Until 5 minutes ago you knew it was all sorted.

Nope, all I knew was "WHO" I trusted as reliable sources of information, and also whom I definitely did not trust as reliable.

I have always maintained that all of us, barring a very small minority of scientists had a full enough understanding of the subject, and it's myriad of variables, and changing nuances, to ever do anything but make that fundamental choice of who to believe, as so few are capable of actually "knowing".

Well, beware of the people who say they have the miriad variables sorted. They don't. Anybody who pretends that this complex issue is all settled is lying. There's a first rule of thumb for all of us.

Put forward a hypothesis, be passionate and argue for it, counter the doubters, present new explanations as the challenges arise - fine and honourable. Talk of wilful deception by those who cvhallenge and disagree, and you are on scientifically and ethically untenable ground.

AGW has been a crash or crash through case so far, and it has well and truly crashed. It cannot be revived in its pre-Copenhagen guise. That nonsense is dead.

Grendel wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 11:47pm:

I think you'll find timing is everything fd.

This isn't a comedy routine Grendel.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 8:29pm:

Hey muso, could you explain how the amount of CO2 that the oceans can effectively store, comes into the equation? ....

pH is another factor. As the pH drops, the capacity of the oceans to absorb more CO2 decreases. You need to look at the Carbon balance over the last 50 years or so. It becomes apparent that the mass of CO2 partitioning into the ocean has varied from about 45 percent of that emitted to about 30% (from memory). The 800 year lag time is a strawman in a way, but I'll explain more in detail later. When we're talking about the effect of increased solar irradiance on Ocean temperatures and CO2 emissions, maybe it holds for at least part of the pre-industrial past.

It's easy to say - this is what happened in the past, but things have changed considerably in recent times. We're not in Kansas any more. The current transformation of the carbon cycle due to changes in climate and atmospheric composition has changed  the complete picture. For a start, there's the matter of about 8.5 Gigatonnes of Carbon being emitted each year from the burning of fossil fuels, and that has also increased dramatically since 1950.  

That's a woeful explanation, but I'm enjoying a long weekend right now. I'll expand on it later, but I think you might follow what I'm trying to say.

ROTFLMAO well that ought to be interesting if not just biased and wrong headed...  

but it probably wont even be that.

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.  And they say the skeptics mess with semantics...

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years.

All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend.   How many years of warming are they claiming we've had so far?  What are they claiming is causing it?

The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.  Riiiight...  could have.... as far as we can tell...  Don't you just love the exactness of this science?

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.  Uh-huh and the initial driver was?  Well whatever it was it wasn't man-made emissions.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.  Really?  How surprising.  Some of us have been saying this and been ridiculed for it.

Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.  So were these not caused by man-made emmissions?

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Wait for it...

Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm.  Hallelujah brother... and may the truth set you free...

This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later.  As Bob Carter another much maligned dissenter from the denialist/alarmist belief has been saying ad infinitum.

Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. Yet not only does it trap heat it also frees it as the Lidar research has shown.  But let's not mention that eh.

This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway.  Yet another point the denialist/alarmist camp have been reticent to acknowledge.  CO2 DOES NOT INITIATE WARMINGS...  there is another PRIMARY DRIVER, or perhaps DRIVERS, which they earlier claimed was CURRENTLY UNKNOWN.  dear me could the science be imperfect?  Could climate be more complicated than we yet understand?  Then how can we claim to be able to control it?

From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.  Here we go...  model estimates...  well they've been reliable so far haven't they.  GIGO... that's the problem with models when we don't fully understand how climate works.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.  Really?  So is this storage and release less than man's contribution?  
Oh and lets not forget that right about now we are due for a natural increase in CO2...  due to the Medieval WARM period, which REALCLIMATE, AL GORE and MANN all left out of their calculations.  How INCONVENIENT.

Sheez, beo. Just how much rope did Muso give you?

Like I said, we're not in Kansas any more.

I dont share Musos pov or his rope poobaby...


what's your point?  that this article from Realclimate by one of your fellow believers is wrong?

It's not wrong Grendel. It just doesn't mean what you appear to think it does.

I never said it was wrong FD...  that is way too simple and wrong of you to say it.
My comments are clear enough.

And I did not say that you said it was wrong.


Quote:

My comments are clear enough.

So are mine.

Quote:

It's not wrong Grendel.

liar liar pants on fire...  fd.

Please explain why you said this then.

It was in response to this post from you, which BTW immeidately precedes it.


Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 2:06pm:

I dont share Musos pov or his rope poobaby... what's your point?  that this article from Realclimate by one of your fellow believers is wrong?

The point was of course, to point out the difference between saying your article is wrong and saying that you don't understand it's meaning:


freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:

It's not wrong Grendel. It just doesn't mean what you appear to think it does.

You're full of it fd.

Do you know what a positive feedback loop is Grendel?

Positive and negative feedback actually....  
I also know what 800 years means
Do you know that CO2 also aids in cooling the atmosphere?

Why do you think the facts presented in that article represent some kind of challenge to climate change orthodoxy?

I think that they add to it's complexity...

One more time...  fd...  are you aware that CO2 also aids in cooling the atmosphere?

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 10:55pm:

I think that they add to it's complexity... One more time...  fd...  are you aware that CO2 also aids in cooling the atmosphere?

What is the relative magnitude of the heating and cooling effects?
Which one is greatest?
Please provide references.

Grendel wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 10:55pm:

I think that they add to it's complexity...

So you don't think anything the article actually contradicts climate change orthodoxy? You have merely discovered that is not as simple as you previously thought?

FD... I've never thought climate is simple...  in fact I've always argued that it is very complex...  don't you read what I write?

Quote:

What is the relative magnitude of the heating and cooling effects? Which one is greatest? Please provide references.

Dont you know muso?

So you don't think anything in the article actually contradicts climate change orthodoxy?

I think it points out that there is an 800 year lag which many people have been saying for a very long time and others have been ignoring.

As for the "orthodoxy"...  depends on what you define it as.

Quote:

As for the "orthodoxy"...  depends on what you define it as.

So you are just trying to outdo muso in showing how many details you know?

Muso doesn't even come into my thinking...
This lag point was one of the first I ever brought up.
Long before Muso entered the scene.

Would you like a cookie?

What for?
Do you need to grow up too?

For all your hard work.

Grendel wrote on Apr 25^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

FD... I've never thought climate is simple...  in fact I've always argued that it is very complex...  don't you read what I write? Quote: What is the relative magnitude of the heating and cooling effects? Which one is greatest? Please provide references. Dont you know muso?

Yes I do. I just thought it would be better for you to research it yourself rather than be told by me. After all, the author of the article didn't dwell on such a trivial matter. Do you ever wonder why?  Do you ever suspect that they emphasise only what they want to emphasise?   ::)

LoL

I suppose being as egotistical and immature as you are Muso you've never asked yourself the same questions.

Feel free to enlighten us.
The latest Antarctic LIDAR research figures will do for a start.

There is nothing revolutionary or new about any of the LIDAR measurements from the Antarctic or anywhere else for that matter.

Possibly one of the denialist sites has latched on to the fact that the upper stratosphere around 50 km has cooled as a result of the radiative forcing of CO2. If you read the sticky notes. If you look at Reply 11 dated November last year, you'll see clear reference to this cooling effect of the lower stratosphere, which is a direct consequence of the long wave IR absorption of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

So, yes, there is a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere. It has no bearing on the troposphere.

LIDAR's have been used for many years for atmospheric profiling studies.  

Good grief...  now you are telling yourself stories and believing them.  ;D ;D ;D

Did I say Lidar is new?  :D

No but there is new research going on right now in the Antarctic with focus on CO2 and cooling due to the climate scare.

BTW the upper atmosphere cooling does affect the troposhere and other layers and also the CO2 there which radiates heat away from the Earth back into space must have a bearing on how much heat reaches the Earth in the first place.   ::)
(Not something you and your fellow believers have ever mentioned BTW)

ps.  no I didn't read about it on any "denialist" site wacko...

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 6:58pm:

Good grief...  now you are telling yourself stories and believing them.  ;D ;D ;D Did I say Lidar is new?  :D No but there is new research going on right now in the Antarctic with focus on CO2 and cooling due to the climate scare. BTW the upper atmosphere cooling does affect the troposhere and other layers and also the CO2 there which radiates heat away from the Earth back into space must have a bearing on how much heat reaches the Earth in the first place.   ::) (Not something you and your fellow believers have ever mentioned BTW) ps.  no I didn't read about it on any "denialist" site wacko...

Just imagine a dandelion seed head. The centre represents a carbon dioxide atom. The seed stalks radiate at all angles. They represent the directions that the Infrared rays are re-radiated when emitted by the CO2 atom.

The Carbon dioxide molecule lives way up high in the atmosphere. It's quite a lonely little molecule, but it's getting more and more friends every year.

One day, it was getting on with some day to day random movements when this big bad photon of long wave infrared radiation hit it up the rear. It absorbed the big bad photon and became very excited. So excited that it threw out another infrared photon in a completely random direction.

If the little carbon dioxide molecule had not been there, then the Infrared photon would have carried on all the way out to outer space, unless it had been caught by another carbon dioxide molecule of course.

Of course sometimes the little carbon dioxide molecule throws the photon out in its original direction.  Is that a cooling effect?

Well you judge for yourselves, girls and boys.

---

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2010 at 6:58pm:

.... and also the CO2 there which radiates heat away from the Earth back into space must have a bearing on how much heat reaches the Earth in the first place.   ::)

Ok, since you brought it up, how much of a part does it play in the overall energy balance?  I've given you a clue. You just have to Google the Earth's energy balance. In fact I'm sure I've posted a diagram at some stage in the past showing the various energy fluxes of which your little flux is just one.

Of course, the important factor in all this is the net effect. Add up all these effects and what is the net effect? Heating or cooling?

Looking at that net effect, is it any different to what we've been saying all along? ???

This particular gem is like a schoolboy learning about electronics. He knows that an amplifier is designed to increase sound. He looks inside the box and what does he find? Resistors! heaps of them. He knows that resistors reduce current, and there are a lot more resistors than transistors. It's all one big plot. The amplifier is full of resistors, so it must be actually reducing the sound level, not amplifying it.

Oh your the big expert I was relying on you to know.

Grendel wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 3:40pm:

Oh your the big expert I was relying on you to know.

That's your problem. You rely on experts rather than researching the subject yourself.

If you want to be a skeptic, be skeptical of everything you read.

Oh I am...
unlike yourself.

How do you suppose I research the subject myself without relying on experts?

At least I don't rely on pseudo experts such as yourself for all my information.

Grendel wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:23pm:

Oh How do you suppose I research the subject myself without relying on experts?

Let me guess. You read Climate Denialist blogs, and you read a chapter of Plimer every night before saying your prayers.

muso wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

This particular gem is like a schoolboy learning about electronics. He knows that an amplifier is designed to increase sound. He looks inside the box and what does he find? Resistors! heaps of them. He knows that resistors reduce current, and there are a lot more resistors than transistors. It's all one big plot. The amplifier is full of resistors, so it must be actually reducing the sound level, not amplifying it.

This is an excellent analogy. Probably over beo's head, but an excellent analogy.

Well I am a science dummie, I do not get the technical significance of the amplifier analogy, but I did with the dandelion one, that was very useful to help me visualise the process going on.
I like analogies, especially ones I understand, lol.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 12:13pm:

Well I am a science dummie, I do not get the technical significance of the amplifier analogy, but I did with the dandelion one, that was very useful to help me visualise the process going on. I like analogies, especially ones I understand, lol.

Maaate.... you sure have a VERY selective undertanding of science and the experts whose scientific advice you accept if you are still smoking and consider quitting only 'coz it's getting too expensive.




;)



mozzaok wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Geez, I said I would quit if they hit $20, but I think I may try again now, it is getting silly. Definition of a ciggy is a tube with a fire at one end and a fool at the other. ;D

lol is the mot just.

or l'acronyme just if you prefer.

so nothing really sensible or constructive as usual I see.

I read lots of sites and info actually.   Both sides of the debate.  Unlike some here.   I don't own Plimers book and I don't read blogs as such.