General AGW discussion thread

[Torsten]

NSIDC (http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html) states "Monthly averages are considered more accurate indicators of overall trends". The daily fluctuations apparent in the second chart I posted should indicate why comparing any one date to the mean or to the same date in another year is not too meaningful. Also, I notice the extent reported this morning for Feb 25 is actually 28,437 square km greater than reported for the same date when I retrieved the data last night.

The data points reported for the AMSR-E sensor are actually two day averages according to the IJIS site (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm), whereas NSIDC averages their results over 5 days for their daily chart. So there are some dangers in getting excited about the real time data.

For the data derived from the SSM/I sensor, the NSIDC FAQ (http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#error_bars) states:

We estimate error based on accepted knowledge of the sensor capabilities and analysis of the amount of “noise,” or daily variations not explained by changes in weather variables. For average relative error, or error relative to other years, the error is approximately 20,000 to 30,000 square kilometers (7,700 to 11,600 square miles), a small fraction of the total existing sea ice. For average absolute error, or the amount of ice that the sensor measures compared to actual ice on the ground, the error is approximately 50 thousand to 1 million square kilometers (19,300 to 386,100 square miles).

The absolute error values may seem high, but it is important to note that each year has roughly the same absolute error value, so the decline over the long term remains clear. NSIDC has high confidence in sea ice trend statistics and the comparison of sea ice extent between years.

The rate of ice growth paused between December 12 and 19, before the SMM/I sensor failure, and they explained:
December's week-long pause in expansion of the ice cover appears to have been caused, at least in part, by an anomalous atmospheric pressure pattern. High pressure over Alaska and the European Arctic, coupled with unusually low pressure east of Greenland and over eastern Siberia, brought warm southerly winds over much of the Arctic Ocean. The southerly winds helped keep the ice edge from expanding southward. In addition, warm sea surface temperatures, at least in the Barents Sea, inhibited ice formation.

[William]

I fail to see why his statement was any less civil than your own.

Also, for the record: If you really want the moderators to act on a post, it's generally better to report the post, instead of playing wannabe-moderator by guessing whether it's actionable or not.

As for your challenge to me, it's all Greek to me. I fail to see why accepting that carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane as global warming gasses is a "preconception", though, any more than accepting that Venus is a burning furnace thanks to its mostly-carbon dioxide atmosphere is.

There is a disingenuous argument made on some climate sites comparing the Earth to Venus.

On the earth, as opposed to Venus, carbon dioxide can only absorb and emit a couple of narrow frequencies. As shown in the attached links those frequencies are close to being saturated and overlap the H2O molecule's absorption bands. On the earth there is a logarithmic relationship such the first 10% of CO2 has the most warming and then as the narrow CO2 absorption bandwidths are completely absorbed, subsequent increases in CO2 has less and less affect. The effect is not linear, is frequency specific, and is different than glass on a greenhouse.

At lower levels in the atmosphere all agree the CO2 absorption levels are saturated. The IPPC report states that a doubling of CO2 will increase the planet’s temperature by 0.7C. The 3C to 7C comes from assuming there is a positive feedback rather than negative feedback to a forcing change.

Other scientists have made arguments for a smaller direct increase than 0.7C for CO2 doubling. The scientific problems involves detail atmospheric processes and modelling issues. As far as I know those issues have not be resolved one way or the other.

A second issue is the large positive feedback required to increase a forcing of 0.7C to 3C to 7C. There is data and analysis in published papers to support the assertion the planet has negative rather than positive feedback to a forcing change.

The first link below explains the science and the scientific controversy, in neutral scientific terms.

Contrary to press releases, the scientific issues have not been settled. There is no question increased CO2 will cause warming. The scientific question is how much. If there is negative feedback rather than positive, the total net increase for doubling has been estimated by some scientists to be around 0.5C.

If that assertion were correct, then a significant portion of the 20th century warming would have been due to something else.

What makes this problem interesting is there is new temperature data, solar data, ocean temperature data, new published papers, which indicate this problem will be answered over the next couple of years.

Comment:
When gas is highly pressurized (93 atmospheres on Venus’ surface) the gas properties become liquid like and the narrow CO2 absorption frequencies broaden. The 93 atmospheres on Venus’ surface and the high concentration of CO2 account for the high temperatures on Venus.

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page11.htm


http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf

[publiusr]

With the Carbon Observatory finished--it looks like this issue will take awhile to be resolved...

[Torsten]

FYI - NSIDC Again Reporting Near-Real-Time Data from SSM/I Sensor. (http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html)

Back to the F13 satellite they were using until early last year. They have been able to replace the data from the period when the F15 satellite's sensor was failing.

Nice to be able to continue the data series from the same class of instrument, though both AMSR-E and SSM/I (http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090226_Figure4.png) appear very consistent with one another.

[Stroller]

You forgot to answer this.

Been away working.

Sorokhtin, 2001a: Greenhouse effect: Myth and reality. Vestnik Russian Academy of Natural Sciences 1:8-21..

"According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere."

"Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004)."

And this (http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Weather/Older/Convection.html)
"convection refers primarily to atmospheric motions in the vertical direction. The term "advection" is sometimes used to refer to air motion in the horizontal direction. An air parcel will rise naturally if the air within the parcel is warmer than the surrounding air (like a hot air balloon). Therefore, if cool air is present aloft with warm air at lower levels, thermals can rise to great heights before losing their buoyancy.

Such convection processes in a large part dominate the world's weather, including the production of rain and snow, thunderstorms, hurricanes and frontal systems. When air convects it cools. If cooling is sufficient, the temperature of the rising air will fall below its dew point, releasing excess water vapour as clouds and ultimately precipitation."


Since you are so fond of quoting chapter and verse of IPCC AR4 at me, lets see what they have to say about convection in the GCM's they rely on:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
While GCMs have other well-known limitations, such as coarse spatial resolution, inaccurate representation of convection and hence updraft velocities leading to aerosol activation and cloud formation processes, and microphysical parametrizations...
...
Models also have weaknesses in representing convection processes and aerosol distributions, and simulating updraft velocities and convection-cloud interactions
...
Modelling the cloud albedo effect from fi rst principles has proven difficult because the representation of aerosol-cloud and convection-cloud interactions in climate models are still crude (Lohmann and Feichter, 2005).
...
Using these data some studies (Sekiguchi et al., 2003; Quaas et al., 2004) indicate that the magnitude of the RF is resolution dependent, since the representation of convection and clouds in the GCMs and the simulation of updraft velocity that affects activation themselves are resolution dependent.

So there you are, it's just as I said, straight from the horses mouth. Please be more careful in future before you accuse me of twisting the facts.

I'm still looking for the paper which shows that the vast majority of back radiation is from vater vapour in clouds not co2. I'll update when I find it. I'm away working again monday, so it may be a while.

[Stroller]

With the Carbon Observatory finished--it looks like this issue will take awhile to be resolved...

Apparently, some whizz kid (http://1.2.3.12/bmi/www.thoth.ca/images/Brendan_Quine_2003.jpg)has built a 50 cubic " box with an ARM7 processor and linux coupled to a radio shack sensor and launched it into orbit (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/27/canadian-mini-satellite-may-solve-carbon-puzzle/) with a catapult to do the same job. :)

[Stroller]

FYI - NSIDC Again Reporting Near-Real-Time Data from SSM/I Sensor. (http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html)

Back to the F13 satellite they were using until early last year. They have been able to replace the data from the period when the F15 satellite's sensor was failing.

Nice to be able to continue the data series from the same class of instrument, though both AMSR-E and SSM/I (http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090226_Figure4.png) appear very consistent with one another.

This is an interesting one. Until late october last year, the SSMI data showed considerably more ice than AMSR, but it was suddenly altered into line with AMSR. No explanation was forthcoming, but may have something to do with changing definitions of what constitutes sea ice and coastal ice.

[Torsten]

News (http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/news.html):

23 November 2008
AMSR-E Level-3 Sea Ice Products Validated
Beginning on 21 September 2008, all AMSR-E Level-3 sea ice products are validated. The products transitioned from Transitional 08 (T08) to Validated 09 (V09). No changes were made to the algorithms. AMSR-E Level-3 sea ice products include the following:

AMSR-E/Aqua Daily L3 6.25 km 89 GHz Brightness Temperature Polar Grids (AE_SI6)
AMSR-E/Aqua Daily L3 12.5 km Brightness Temperature, Sea Ice Concentration, & Snow Depth Polar Grids (AE_SI12)
AMSR-E/Aqua Daily L3 25 km Brightness Temperature & Sea Ice Concentration Polar Grids (AE_SI25)

07 October 2008
AMSR-E Level-3 Reprocessing Complete
Reprocessing is complete for all AMSR-E/Aqua Level-3 products. Data from 19 June 2002 (the start of the AMSR-E mission) to present are now Version 2, the validated or transitional version of the algorithm.

15 August 2008
Reprocessing Has Started for All AMSR-E Level 3 Sea Ice Products
Reprocessing started with data from 19 June 2002, the start of the AMSR-E mission, and will continue through 5 July 2008. Forward processing began on 6 July 08. Reprocessing is expected to take several months to complete. . . .

. . . The algorithms for all Level 3 sea ice products are at the Transitional 08 (T08) level and incremented from Version 1 to Version 2.

For a complete list of sea ice algorithm changes, as well ordering options and documentation, see the AMSR-E Data Versions Web page. . . .

AMSR-E Data Versions
(http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/versions.html)
T07: Data never produced using this algorithm version. Algorithm updates included the following:

- Updated the product maturity code status to Transitional (T).
- Updated the sea ice concentration parameters.
- Converted the algorithm code to run on Linux. This version is not compatible with SGI IRIX.
- Set the default system stacksize parameter to unlimited.
- Added a shell script that is used during installation.
- Added new flag values for the 12.5 km snow depth product such as:

- 140 indicates multiyear sea ice
- 150 indicates variability in snow depth
- 160 indicates snow melt.
T08: The AMSR-E sea ice temperature grids were removed from the 25 km product because of inherent ambiguities between changes in the physical temperature of the ice and changes in the ice emissivity. Instead, the panel suggested that an AMSR-E sea ice drift product be developed. Also, this algorithm includes all modifications made in version T07.

V09-Stage1: A new sea ice version was implemented to validate. There were no changes to the science algorithm from T08 to V09.The only change was to the file name.

[William]

With the Carbon Observatory finished--it looks like this issue will take awhile to be resolved...

Some expect or predict a drop in planetary temperature outside of the bandwidth of weather (i.e. Climate change not weather) based on what has happened in the past and the mechanisms. A significant drop in planetary temperature will end the global warming debate and start, I would assume, a cooling debate.

There is evidence the planet is cooling. The UK Meteorological Society is now predicting a drop in temperature over the next decade. That is a reversal. The UK Meteorological Society had been continuing to predict each year after 1998 would be the warmest on record. That prediction was not correct and each year has been colder than 1998. This recent UK winter is the coldest in last 10 years, with abnormally high snowfall.

There is evidence of past abrupt drops in planetary temperature. Look at figure 2 in the attached.

Paleoclimatic Record

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Planetary temperature during Maunder Minimum.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/other_papers/Luterbacheretal2000_IJC.pdf


The Maunder Minimum (MM; 1645–1715) denotes the coldest period of the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA; variously assessed as AD 1300–1900). The MM is well known for its scarcity of sunspots, as first recognized by Spo¨ rer (1887) and Maunder (1922), and later confirmed by Eddy (1976).

A low number of sunspots is a direct indication of less intense solar radiation and activity. Estimations about the total solar radiative output changes for the MM are in the order of 0.2–0.4% relative to present levels (Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Nesme-Ribes et al., 1993; Zhang et al., 1994; Lean et al., 1995; Beer et al., 1996; Lean and Rind, 1998, 1999; Maddox, 1998). The solar activity during the MM was near its lowest levels within the past 8000 years (Lean and Rind, 1999) and the UV (200–300 nm) irradiance was also lower (Lean et al., 1995).

This in turn could have had an influence on stratospheric chemistry (ozone):dynamics (absorption) activities. Accordingly, levels of d14C and d10Be cosmogenic isotopes in, respectively, tree rings and ice cores were elevated (Eddy, 1976; Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993), while stratospheric ozone was reduced and cloudiness was probably increased (Wuebbles et al., 1998). Further, the MM was characterized by the eruption of several large volcanoes (Briffa et al., 1998) and by marked climate variability in large areas of the entire world.

[mugaliens]

Yeah! We did it!

(off screen - What? You mean we haven't done anything near enough to cause the cooling ourselves?)

Uh... Umm...

Nevermind.

(heh.. uh...)

:silenced:

That's been my pet theory for a while - that there's something commensurate with sunspots. We know what it's not (total radiation). Given the strong correllation, however, why hasn't there been efforts to find out what it is? It's clear (inductively) the Earth's temperature doesn't cause the sunspots! More likely, something else in the sunspots is changing how the Earth's atmosphere deals with the radiation (more clouds? ozone? absorption dynamics?) It's also possible there's a third source, exterior to both the Earth and the Sun, which either result in sunspots and warming, or result in the lack of sunspots and cooling.

Here's a prediction: As the Earth cools, contrary to all AGW predictions, government funding will be pulled, and scientists will clamor for funds to explore the correlation between sunspot and global temperature variation.

Just a hunch...

[Ari Jokimaki]

So there you are, it's just as I said, straight from the horses mouth.
Let's just see what you actually said:


If we compare the amount of energy absorbed by the oceans directly from the sun with the amount of longwave outgoing radiation (infrared) energy absorbed by co2 compared to water vapour, we can see this is also irrelevant in terms of the effect of backradiation from increased co2 in the atmosphere to the surface. The convection of heat through the effective co2 layer is ignored by models.
So, you claimed that "convection of heat through the effective co2 layer is ignored by models", but you have just shown yourself that convection is indeed included in the models, not ignored, so once again we see that you have stated a false thing as a fact. And you went on claiming that the things were just as you said, which is another false claim from you.


Please be more careful in future before you accuse me of twisting the facts.
When I said that your facts have turned out to be twisted here recently, I was not talking about this issue because you hadn't even answered my question about this issue yet. So we see that you are trying to twist this fact also by trying to pretend that my statement was related to this convection issue. We also saw above that even in this convection issue your facts have turned out to be twisted.

Talking about twisting the facts, you selected lot of quotes from different documents to show that convection exists, and that there are some problems with modelling the convection. You forgot to mention that CO2 is also transported up by convection. See Miyazaki et al. (2008) (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d4/prabir/papers/2007JD009557.pdf), their figure 2c shows measured CO2 distribution in upper troposphere, and you can see from the ppm-scale (373 +/- few ppm) that CO2 concentration is quite substantial in the upper troposphere. Now, let us take another selected quote from Wikipedia's climate model page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model): "...upward transport of heat by convection (especially important in the lower troposphere)". If there is plenty of CO2 in the upper troposphere and convection mainly occurs in lower troposphere, then there must be a CO2 column even above the "convected heat". Oh, and as you wanted to emphasize modelling problems related to convection, see how well Miyazaki et al. model recreates the observed distribution of both surface (simulated - figure 2d and f, observed - figure 2b) and upper troposphere (simulated - figure 2e and g, observed - figure 2c). Having problems with modelling doesn't mean that the modelling cannot be done, even if climate sceptics would like people to believe that is so.

Another interesting paper on the issue is Chahine et al. (2008) (ftp://ftp.gps.caltech.edu/pub/xun/manuscript/Chahine_GRL2008.pdf):


Our results demonstrate that satellite derived CO2 data track weather patterns and can also be used to study the vertical and horizontal transports in the Earth’s atmosphere. We have shown that CO2 emissions by surface sources can be observed in the mid-troposphere and how they are transported around the globe.
See the figure 3 also, it contains a global map of measured CO2 concentration in mid-troposphere.

So, as you are trying to emphasize some "estimates" from 2001 to prove your points, these people are actually measuring these things, and the emerging (or, rather, already emerged) picture doesn't look like anything you are claiming.

[Ari Jokimaki]

That's been my pet theory for a while - that there's something commensurate with sunspots. We know what it's not (total radiation). Given the strong correllation, however, why hasn't there been efforts to find out what it is? It's clear (inductively) the Earth's temperature doesn't cause the sunspots! More likely, something else in the sunspots is changing how the Earth's atmosphere deals with the radiation (more clouds? ozone? absorption dynamics?)
Lockwood & Fröhlich (2007) (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf) say this:


Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
Sunspot number is among the things they included in their study.

[William]

Lockwood & Fröhlich (2007) (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf) say this:


Sunspot number is among the things they included in their study.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/research/reports/scientific%20reports/dnsc-scientific_report_3_2007.pdf


In a recent paper (ref. [1]) Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich have argued that recent trends in solar climate forcing have been in the wrong direction to account for "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures".

These authors accept that "there is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century." But they argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. Here we rebut their argument comprehensively.

Ari,

Fortunately, we will have a chance to live through nature's demonstration of the mechanisms. As most are aware there is a 10 fold increase in atmospheric disturbances during the abrupt cooling periods, I would expect due to increase temperature differential between poles and tropical latitudes. The increase in atmospheric disturbances leaves a residue of sodium chloride from the ocean and dust from the Sahara on the Greenland Ice sheet surface during the "RICKIES" (pronounced Ricky or Rickies) rapid climatic change events.

I believe your specific weather complaint was a lack of sea ice in your vicinity. Mother nature should have a solution to that problem, in the next couple of years. How was snow fall in your area?

This is not a sporting event where people pick sides and cheer on their team.

[William]

As the planet cools, there is more snow and extreme climatic events.

I believe there were snow fall records in Northern Europe also. As noted the UK had its coldest winter in the last 10 years.

I see reports of record cold weather in the Southern Hemisphere.

Of course this is only weather, not climate change. As the temperature extreme increases the change is no longer weather (i.e. Outside of the range possible with mechanisms that cause "weather".)

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/winter-hell-toronto-snowfall-may-break-70-year-old-record


The Canadian province of Ontario has been hit with record breaking levels of snowfall this winter and there are no signs of it letting up any time soon. In fact, meteorologists are predicting that Toronto, Ontario's capital city, will break a 70 year old record for snowfall set in 1939.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/12/snowfall-record-remains-in-forecast/


As I’ve been saying for weeks, it’s possible that the Spokane International Airport will challenge the all-time record of 93.5 inches set back in 1949-50. Last year was close to that record with 92.6 inches of the white stuff. As of Tuesday morning, the airport has received 81.5 inches with more snow expected.


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/jan/storm012809b.jpg


Kentucky was, perhaps, affected the most by the ice where as many as 24 people died and as many as 6,500 people were displaced according to CNN reports. The governor of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, called the storm the "biggest natural disaster" in the state's modern history. Beshear was forced to declare a state of emergency in 93 of the state's 120 counties. The storm caused 609,000 homes and businesses to lose power, exceeding a record that was set just five months prior by the remnants of Hurricane Ike.


During the month of December more than 2,000 daily snowfall records were broken across the U.S. The record snowfalls were the result of several winter storms that wreaked havoc along the western seaboard and across the Plains, Great Lakes and the Northeast. The more noteworthy snow events took place in the Desert Southwest, the Upper Midwest, the Northeast, southeast Texas, and southwestern Louisiana.

[nauthiz]

I believe there were snow fall records in Northern Europe also.

That's not necessarily a sign of a colder weather and in the absence of further information I'd presume it indicates the opposite.

If the weather stays colder than you can get less snow because less water will evaporate from surrounding bodies of water and the air will be drier. If the weather gets warmer, you might then get more snow because the increase in temperature means more water vapor in the air to precipitate.

In general, the heaviest snowfalls occur when the temperature is within a few degrees of freezing.

[William]

That's not necessarily a sign of a colder weather and in the absence of further information I'd presume it indicates the opposite.

If the weather stays colder than you can get less snow because less water will evaporate from surrounding bodies of water and the air will be drier. If the weather gets warmer, you might then get more snow because the increase in temperature means more water vapor in the air to precipitate.

In general, the heaviest snowfalls occur when the temperature is within a few degrees of freezing.

I support your statement for a single heavy snow fall. Regions that are extremely cold have little snow. This record snowfall came from a series of extreme storms followed by unusually cold weather. The snow did not melt.

What happens as the planet cools in North America is the high latitude cold air moves south creating near hurricane level blizzards. In North America there is no West to East mountain range to protect the Southern Regions from the extremely cold Northern Latitude mid-continent air.

There were three separate below freezing events in Florida this year.

On the coast when the planet cools there can be very heavy snowfall, in regions where there is normally no or little snow, for example on the west coast Seattle and Vancouver. During the glacial phase for example New York City was the center that feed the ice sheet in that area.

The extreme weather continues.


January 29, 2009 Storm

Utility companies in Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Arkansas and West Virginia warned that many of the estimated 1.3 million homes and businesses left without electricity wouldn't have power back before Saturday at the earliest, and at worst, as late as mid-February

Tree limbs encased in ice tumbled onto roads and crashed onto power lines in hard-hit Arkansas, Kentucky and Oklahoma, keeping thousands without power. In Arkansas - where ice in some places was 3 inches thick - people huddled next to portable heaters and wood-burning fires as utilities warned electricity may be out for days.


Febuary 9, 2009 Storm

Staff at Winnipeg hospitals were kept extra busy throughout Monday treating people who sustained injuries in falls because of icy conditions caused by one of the worst ice storms in recent memory.



March 1, 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/winter/2009-03-01-south-carolinas-snow_N.htm


Rare March snowstorm for the Carolinas

Forecasters expect a rare March snowstorm across a large portion of South and North Carolina starting Sunday. A band of heavy snow could bring up to 8 inches, likely along Interstate 85 in North Carolina.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/27/snowiest-winter-ever-recorded-in-north-dakota/


By the end of January, many counties had more than 400 percent of normal snow totals on the ground, and Governor John Hoeven had declared a state of emergency.

“There has been a repeated pattern,” said Fong, ”where the county will come and plow a road and then two days later, without any additional snow, the road becomes impassable again.” Relatively speaking, the people in Bismarck have gotten off light. Divide County, in the state’s northwest corner, has received 500 percent of normal snowfall.

[Ari Jokimaki]

http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/insti...ort_3_2007.pdf
I would have expected much better from those authors because they have after all published some peer reviewed work before, but this one... well, they don't even seem to know the difference between the weather and climate:


...global surface temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998. The apparent pause in global warming...
There seems to be more thorough analysis of this work available (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476) showing that there's nothing of substance there, so I won't bother with it any further.


I believe your specific weather complaint was a lack of sea ice in your vicinity. Mother nature should have a solution to that problem, in the next couple of years. How was snow fall in your area?
You have misunderstood. It was not a "complaint". At that point, you posted just about every news item about local cold events, trying to imply that they had significance in global climate. I pointed out one example of recent anomalous warmth just to show that your examples of cold anomalies are just cherry picking, but you still don't seem to understand that. Our snow fall has been very weak for many years now. This winter we had more of it than in last 2 years, but still very little. But I'm not claiming that my local observation has anything to do with global climate. If you are trying to claim that the planet is cooling, it should be easy to show from global long time mean temperatures. Problem is that even in 5 year means there's very little "cooling" showing, and 5 year mean is still quite short time when climate is being discussed.

[Stroller]

A very interesting paper has been published By Nir Shaviv:

Citation: Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989

from the paper:


[73] In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that
the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar
cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally
averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size
of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the
flux and the driving force further implies that it cannot be
part of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part
of a coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must
therefore be the manifestation of real variations in the global
radiative forcing.
[74] It should be stressed that the observed correlation
between the oceanic heat flux and solar activity does not
provide proof for any particular amplification mechanism,
including that of the CRF/climate link. It does however
provide very strong support for the notion that an amplification
mechanism exists. Given that the CRF/climate links
predicts the correct radiation imbalance observed in the
cloud cover variations, it is a favorable candidate.
[75] With respect to simulating climate dynamics, the
results have two very interesting ramifications. First, they
imply that any attempt to explain historic temperature
variations should consider that the solar forcing variations
are almost an order of magnitude larger that just the TSI
variations now used almost exclusively. It would imply that
the climate sensitivity required to explain historic temperature
variations is smaller than often concluded.
[76] Second, an additional constraint can be used to
narrow the range of GCMs’ model parameters. Under solar
cycle like periodic forcing, a GCM should predict that the
ratio between the oceanic heat flux and sea-surface temperature
variations is that which is observed, namely, a net
oceanic flux of 1.05 ± 0.25 W/m2 for every 0.09 ± 0.01
C
change in the sea-surface temperature (or somewhat larger
land surface temperature variations). This should prove
useful in constraining GCM based predictions, such as that
of climate sensitivity.

[pumpkinpie]

Adding on to what Ari said....the weather reports seem more appropriate for a separate "extreme weather" thread, rather than one focusing on the climate. Or else incorporate these reports into a 30-year period and see what that says about the climate.

[William]

I would have expected much better from those authors because they have after all published some peer reviewed work before, but this one... well, they don't even seem to know the difference between the weather and climate:


There seems to be more thorough analysis of this work available (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476) showing that there's nothing of substance there, so I won't bother with it any further.

Ari,

My comments are included in the Realclimate thread. See 79, 197, 203, 208, and 211. I do not see an refutement of my comments. A little playful name calling and a dare, but no scientific refutement.

The Realclimate thread creates a strawman with the incorrect mechanism and demonstrate the incorrect mechanism is incorrect.

It does appear the sun is entering a Dalton or Maunder minimum. As noted by Bond in the past when the sun enters the Dalton or Maunder minimum the planet cools. That is a fact.

The planet does appear to be cooling. The first question is how much and how quickly. The second question, assuming the planet cools, is how does the mechanism work.

[HenrikOlsen]

There is evidence the planet is cooling. The UK Meteorological Society is now predicting a drop in temperature over the next decade. That is a reversal. The UK Meteorological Society had been continuing to predict each year after 1998 would be the warmest on record. That prediction was not correct and each year has been colder than 1998. This recent UK winter is the coldest in last 10 years, with abnormally high snowfall.
Once again, and as you have done in just about every post you have made, you're confusing weather for climate and ignoring that every year, including those after '98, the rolling average has been rising.

[William]

Once again, and as you have done in just about every post you have made, you're confusing weather for climate and ignoring that every year, including those after '98, the rolling average has been rising.

If my understanding of the mechanisms is correct, the current small change is a precursor to the big Kahuna. May you live in interesting times. I am curious as to the specific timing and magnitude of the change.

I would assume you have not looked at this problem of the glacial/interglacial cycle from a cause standpoint.

Assuming the planet starts to abruptly cool, is CO2 still a pollutant? I do not understand, the one thing humans are doing that is positive for the biosphere is to add CO2 and to warm it.

Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128.1758&rep=rep1&type=pdf



The so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, that much of inferred past climate change is a response to near periodic variations in the earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun, has attracted a great deal of attention. Numerous textbooks (e.g., Bradley, 1999; Wilson et al., 2000; Ruddiman, 2001) of varying levels and sophisticate ion all tell the reader that the insolation changes are a major element controlling climate on time scales beyond about 10,000 years.


A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are reexamined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size andnear-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods.

[Gillianren]

If my understanding of the mechanisms is correct, the current small change is a precursor to the big Kahuna.

Not necessarily. As I'm sure you're aware, weather is a chaotic system. For example, a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine was visiting the area. She stopped by to visit a couple of friends of ours who live in Bellingham, up against the Canadian border, then came down here, about 150 miles south, and she said it was colder. I didn't check the weather report, but it's possible she was right--and both Bellingham and Olympia are at or near sea level.

[Ari Jokimaki]

My comments are included in the Realclimate thread.
Your comments there don't deal with their comments about Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response, you are just posting the same global cooling stuff there as you have been doing here.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I'll add that there are couple of newer papers on the solar forcing issue: Lockwood & Fröhlich (2008) (http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2008/Lockwood_PRSA2.pdf) and Lockwood (2008) (http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2008/Lockwood_PRSA3.pdf). Both indicate that solar forcing is not the one causing the long time rising trend in global temperature, and it has been negative since 1987. They also deal with Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response.

[William]

Your comments there don't deal with their comments about Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response, you are just posting the same global cooling stuff there as you have been doing here.

Ari,

This is a copy of my comment #79 which directly address Lockwood's argument. Lockwood is looking at GCR changes. There are other hypothesized solar mechanisms that modulate planetary cloud cover and hence affect planetary temperature. Lockwood's early paper's only looked at TSI.

Ari, I see you have no response to above comment that shows periods of time when there is no correlation of planetary temperature and CO2 levels. Over the last 600 kyr and the last 200 million years.

Likewise there is the data that shows the tropical trosospheric temperature does not agree with the CO2 climate models.


My comment: #79 RealClimate
There is data that supports the assertion that a significant portion of the 20th century global warming was due to solar changes. (Note the sun can directly effect global cloud cover via electroscavenging in addition to modulation of GCR.)

Any way, here is a paper that provides data to support the assertion that there is strong correlation of the parameter Ak (which is a measure of the solar magnetic field strength and wind speed. The solar mechanism to that is hypothesized to module cloud cover, is more complicated than simply number of sunspots.) and planetary temperature, in the 20th century. There are also papers that show planetary cloud cover inversely tracks the 20th century temperature changes. Such as Enric Palle’s paper that measures the earthshine off of the moon to determine change in planetary albedo.

[Response: I have not been able to find any convincing documentation on any trend in the low cloudiness (including in the IPCC AR4). -rasmus]

Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”

http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf


From the above paper: “It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from - 0.76 in the period 1868-1890 to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, … According to Echer et al (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity. The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes (my comment: For example coronal hole 254 that produced the Dec 16, 2006 peak in solar wind, during a sun spot minimum, see attached link to Solar Observation Data), seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by sunspot number. In figure 6 long term varations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataga 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with
...

[William]

I'll add that there are couple of newer papers on the solar forcing issue: Lockwood & Fröhlich (2008) (http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2008/Lockwood_PRSA2.pdf) and Lockwood (2008) (http://www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/Members/mike/publications/pdfs/2008/Lockwood_PRSA3.pdf). Both indicate that solar forcing is not the one causing the long time rising trend in global temperature, and it has been negative since 1987. They also deal with Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response.

Ari,
Obviously if the planet starts to abruptly cool this issue will be resolved. As it has stopped warming and is now cooling is a fact. The question is will the cooling trend continue and will it accelerate.

There are papers that show there have in the past been a series of cold events that coincide with solar changes. Specifically how the solar changes cool the planet is not known. There are papers that show the glacial/interglacial cycle cannot be explained by insolation changes.

Planetary temperature change has a time constant (1/e) of roughly 3 to 5 years, so there will even for an abrupt forcing change be a time delay as the system reaches the new equilibrium.

[Ari Jokimaki]

This is a copy of my comment #79 which directly address Lockwood's argument.
So? Like I said: "Your comments there don't deal with their comments about Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response". You offered Svensmark & Friis-Christensen "paper", to which I responded with RealClimate blog entry which addresses Svensmark & Friis-Christensen arguments. You then offered your comments as a response to that. Your comments don't address the arguments presented in the RealClimate blog.

But, I notice that you mention Palle there, some time ago I commented Palle et al. paper in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/76506-another-catastrophie-due-global-warming-13.html#post1417158), and it seems that there's no good evidence of any significant trends in Earth's albedo in that paper.


Ari, I see you have no response to above comment that shows periods of time when there is no correlation of planetary temperature and CO2 levels. Over the last 600 kyr and the last 200 million years.
Oh, sorry, I didn't know that I am obligated to respond to all of your claims. That would be useless as you are mainly just repeating that global cooling argument over and over again without any evidence for it but few selected news about some cold weather events. Your cooling argument is about weather, not climate. Also, if you look at this diagram from GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif), it is not that clear that temperature even is currently cooling. The whole global cooling argument seems to rest on that one anomalously cold spike that happened beginning of 2008.

It is not secret that CO2 level haven't been correlating with global temperature in the past. It is common knowledge that greenhouse gases started to be dominant cause of global warming during the second half of 20th century. Before that, there were other dominant drivers to global temperature. Reason for that is clear, see this diagram of historical CO2 levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) (the green line). CO2 levels have been around 240 ppm in the past but now they are about 380 ppm.


Likewise there is the data that shows the tropical trosospheric temperature does not agree with the CO2 climate models.
You have a bad habbit of not offering references for your claims. Your claims are worthless without them.


Obviously if the planet starts to abruptly cool this issue will be resolved. As it has stopped warming and is now cooling is a fact.
Rubbish. This have been told to you many times that apparent cooling (or, rather, slowed warming) of last couple of years cannot be thought of as anything else than chaotic weather patterns. Declaring planetary cooling is too premature, but of course climate sceptic has to beat that drum on every occasion when today was colder than yesterday. But if you want highlight these weather patterns, then just look at the GISS-diagram I linked to; there is strong warming trend going on starting from the beginning of 2008. So, according to your standards the "cooling trend" has stopped, right?


There are papers that show there have in the past been a series of cold events that coincide with solar changes.
1. Again, it is no secret that climate changes in the past have had different causes than the climate change of today. Having solar changes dominating past climate is common knowledge which doesn't mean that greenhouse gases aren't dominant now.
2. "There are papers" is usually followed by references, but not in your posts.
3. When there are two series having "events" every now and then, it is not surprise that sometimes the "events" of the two series coincide.
4. Even if one would show that some past changes have been due to solar changes doesn't mean that Lockwood & Fröhlich are wrong in that solar forcing is not causing current climate change. Lockwood % Fröhlich are not claiming that past climate changes are not due solar changes. In fact, they specifically state that solar effects were important in pre-industrial times, but their point is that "solar variability effects... ...have simply been swamped by other factors in recent years". If you want to show Lockwood & Fröhlich wrong, you need to address their arguments directly.


There are papers that show the glacial/interglacial cycle cannot be explained by insolation changes.
"There are papers..." again without reference.

Citing causes for past changes in climate doesn't mean that greenhouse gases aren't the cause for this current one. What would stop their effect in the atmosphere all of a sudden? Earlier in this thread I cited some papers that measured greenhouse gas forcing, and here is another one: The role of carbon dioxide in climate forcing from 1979 to 2004: introduction of the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index - Hofmann et al. (2006) (http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Hofmann_2006_Tellus.pdf). Check out their table 2 for example, there is CO2 radiative forcing growing steadily. What would stop it?

[mugaliens]

Apparently, some whizz kid (http://1.2.3.12/bmi/www.thoth.ca/images/Brendan_Quine_2003.jpg)has built a 50 cubic " box with an ARM7 processor and linux coupled to a radio shack sensor and launched it into orbit (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/27/canadian-mini-satellite-may-solve-carbon-puzzle/) with a catapult to do the same job. :)

Wow.

$300,000 vs NASA's $285,000,000.

That's almost 1,000 times more expensive.

:doh:

Seriously, I wonder how much more capable the OCO was than the CanX-2 is?

[William]

So? Like I said: "Your comments there don't deal with their comments about Svensmark & Friis-Christensen response". You offered Svensmark & Friis-Christensen "paper", to which I responded with RealClimate blog entry which addresses Svensmark & Friis-Christensen arguments. You then offered your comments as a response to that. Your comments don't address the arguments presented in the RealClimate blog.

You have a bad habbit of not offering references for your claims. Your claims are worthless without them.


Rubbish. This have been told to you many times that apparent cooling (or, rather, slowed warming) of last couple of years cannot be thought of as anything else than chaotic weather patterns. Declaring planetary cooling is too premature, but of course climate sceptic has to beat that drum on every occasion when today was colder than yesterday. But if you want highlight these weather patterns, then just look at the GISS-diagram I linked to; there is strong warming trend going on starting from the beginning of 2008. So, according to your standards the "cooling trend" has stopped, right?

"There are papers..." again without reference.

Ari,
I have presented a linked argument above with published data to refute the assertion the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by CO2.

1) There is data and analysis in published papers, that shows in the past planetary temperature did not correlate with CO2 levels.
2) There is Douglass' paper (which I will provide a link to) that shows tropical tropospheric temperatures have not risen which is in fundamental disagreement with the general climate models.
3) I provide the paper below and can provide other papers that shows the glacial/interglacial cycle is not caused by insolation changes. There is some other first order strong climate forcing function.
4) I can provide a dozen papers that all showed that solar major minimums correlate with the cold events. That is not refuted by anyone in the scientific community. The question is mechanism.
5) There is also satellite data in addition to the earthshine data that shows the planet's albedo changed during the 20th century and that a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to the albedo changes. (Planetary albedo and cloud cover is difficult to measure which is why this scientific issue clouds vs CO2 has not been settled.)

Perhaps we can turn the discussion around. What data do you have the shows the 20th century warming was caused by increased CO2?

As I said this issue will be settled. If what I said is correct the planet will cool. It does appear it is cooling now. I agree that more time will be required to confirm a climate change is happening. A cooling event is not a positive event.


Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change


http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277379104000575



The so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, that much of inferred past climate change is a response to near periodic variations in the earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun, has attracted a great deal of attention. Numerous textbooks (e.g., Bradley, 1999; Wilson et al., 2000; Ruddiman, 2001) of varying levels and sophisticate ion all tell the reader that the insolation changes are a major element controlling climate on time scales beyond about 10,000 years.



A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are reexamined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely ...


Paleoclimatic Record

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

Planetary temperature during Maunder Minimum.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/other_papers/Luterbacheretal2000_IJC.pdf

[William]

You have a bad habit of not offering references for your claims. Your claims are worthless without them. ...

"There are papers..." again without reference....

This paper essentially disproves that CO2 has the cause of the 20th century warming. The problem is if CO2 was not responsible for the 20th century warming what was responsible has stopped, abruptly changed.

But as I said, where is the paper that proves that CO2 was responsible for the 20th century warming.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearsona and Fred Singer


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf


We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

This is the Realclimate response to Douglass et al's paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/

This is the next response.

http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2656


A debate exists over whether tropical troposphere temperature trends in climate models are inconsistent with observations (Karl et al. 2006, IPCC (2007), Douglass et al 2007, Santer et al 2008). Most recently, Santer et al (2008, herein S08) asserted that the Douglass et al statistical methodology was flawed and that a correct methodology showed there is no statistically significant difference between the model ensemble mean trend and either RSS or UAH satellite observations. However this result was based on data ending in 1999. Using data up to the end of 2007 (as available to S08) or to the end of 2008 and applying exactly the same methodology as S08 results in a statistically significant difference between the ensemble mean trend and UAH observations and approaching statistical significance for the RSS T2 data. The claim by S08 to have achieved a “partial resolution” of the discrepancy between observations and the model ensemble mean trend is unwarranted..


The 20th century warming has stopped. Why? This argument is one sided. There is no scientific explanation for what we are observing.

I live in a Northern country and have friends and relatives in all provinces. This was been and continues to be an exceptionally cold winter (another storm this week -30C with wind chill.) Record long term cold, very, very, strong winter storms, and high snowfall for all regions. I do not see global cooling as an academic question. In one year the "weather" has returned to the cold of the 1970's.

[Gillianren]

I live in a Northern country and have friends and relatives in all provinces. This was been and continues to be an exceptionally cold winter (another storm this week -30C with wind chill.) Record long term cold, very, very, strong winter storms, and high snowfall for all regions. I do not see global cooling as an academic question. In one year the "weather" has returned to the cold of the 1970's.

For the umpteenth time, weather and climate are not the same thing. Looking at the weather of one region--and in whatever country you live, it's still small relative to the size of the Earth--does not and cannot stand in for the accumulated effects around the world. Is the cold weather of your region balanced by or exceeded by warming somewhere else? Have you bothered to look? Further, you have also been told that you cannot make predictions based on what happens one year, since climate is a chaotic system.

You know, the more I listen to AGW skeptics, the harder it is to take any of them seriously.

[nauthiz]

There's also the point, often made by climatologists who try to explain the AGW idea, that the theory predicts that while the entire planet's average temperature is expected to rise, that doesn't translate into an even change spread across the entire planet. The models predict that in several regions the local climate will get colder over the next decade or two. Just because there's an unusually cold winter in Nord doesn't mean it's also a cold winter in Skagway. It's been a pretty darn hot winter for me - was out in short sleeve t-shirt with no jacket on in New York in early February this year. And I was comfortable. But I didn't make a big deal of it except to enjoy it and comment on how weird it is, because weather is not climate.

Also a "temperature" that includes wind chill is not a temperature. Temperature is what the thermometer says, not what the TV weather guy says it'll feel like.

[Torsten]

Some maps labeled "Mean Monthly Temperature Differences from Normal (National)" from a northern country that has provinces:

October, 2008 (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/drought/maps/nl_td08_10e.pdf)
November, 2008 (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/drought/maps/nl_td08_11e.pdf)
December, 2008 (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/drought/maps/nl_td08_12e.pdf)
January, 2009 (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/drought/maps/nl_td09_01e.pdf)
February, 2008 (http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/drought/maps/nl_td09_02e.pdf)



There seems to be selective reporting of extreme weather.

I think this means that William is allowed to quote any weather report that is about cold weather, but if anyone mentions that it is so hot where they live that the power grid is failing due to demand by air conditioners, that is "selective reporting".

[Ari Jokimaki]

I have presented a linked argument above with published data to refute the assertion the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by CO2.
Which one?


1) There is data and analysis in published papers, that shows in the past planetary temperature did not correlate with CO2 levels.
Which everyone agrees on, but again you didn't provide references.


2) There is Douglass' paper (which I will provide a link to) that shows tropical tropospheric temperatures have not risen which is in fundamental disagreement with the general climate models.
See below.


3) I provide the paper below and can provide other papers that shows the glacial/interglacial cycle is not caused by insolation changes. There is some other first order strong climate forcing function.
Once again, nobody is claiming that greenhouse gases were always the dominant driver behind global temperature changes. But currently they are.


4) I can provide a dozen papers that all showed that solar major minimums correlate with the cold events. That is not refuted by anyone in the scientific community. The question is mechanism.
What point is there only to say that you can provide the papers? Just provide them. Although, I have already said that sun is thought to have been a major player in past climate changes, and that doesn't take away the role of greenhouse gases in this current change.


5) There is also satellite data in addition to the earthshine data that shows the planet's albedo changed during the 20th century and that a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to the albedo changes. (Planetary albedo and cloud cover is difficult to measure which is why this scientific issue clouds vs CO2 has not been settled.)
Go ahead and show the data, and the study that goes along with it. Why one always needs to ask you these references before you provide them?

One thing you need to remember here is that albedo changes are expected also when greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Also, measuring just albedo change and calculating it's forcing directly is not enough. One has to know the cause to albedo changes, because there are causes for albedo change that are not so easy to determine how much forcing they are causing, such as clouds.


Perhaps we can turn the discussion around. What data do you have the shows the 20th century warming was caused by increased CO2?
You mean you don't know? Have you only looked at alternative causes? I have linked to a lot of papers even in this thread. Looking backwards and selecting only those that are most relevant: Just in the last post I linked to Hofmann et al. (2006). Then there was Miyazaki et al. (2008) and Chahine et al. (2008). Before that I have linked to some modelling papers and then to a few papers showing radiative forcing measurements (Griggs & Harries, 2004, Clerbaux et al., 2003, Philipona et al., 2004, Dürr, 2004) and to a paper by Harries et al. (2008) showing some CO2 infrared absorption measurements from atmosphere. I also linked to a couple of papers (Quay et al, 1992, Pataki et al., 2006) showing measurements that differentiate anthropogenic and natural emissions of CO2. Very relevant is the textbook I linked to (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html). I also linked to Lean & Rind (2008). These will do for now.

Of course, one only needs to say that the evidence is in peer reviewed literature in general. There are thousands of papers supporting anthropogenic warming by greenhouse gases. Read the peer reviewed literature. Also, good thing would be to read the IPCC AR4.


It does appear it is cooling now.
So, do you disagree that from the beginning of 2008 there has been a strong warming trend (as shown by GISS monthly global temperature data)?


This paper essentially disproves that CO2 has the cause of the 20th century warming. The problem is if CO2 was not responsible for the 20th century warming what was responsible has stopped, abruptly changed.

But as I said, where is the paper that proves that CO2 was responsible for the 20th century warming.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearsona and Fred Singer
...
This is the Realclimate response to Douglass et al's paper.
...
This is the next response.
Allen & Sherwood (2008) (http://lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf) do the analysis until 2005, and they find that:


The degree of warming remains fairly uncertain, but is within the range simulated by climate models, albeit with some discrepancies near the tropopause.
...
Most importantly, we conclude that observed changes in wind seem to be consistent with those predicted by models given sampling and other uncertainties, supporting previous suggestions that discrepancies between predicted and observed upper-tropospheric warming are due to problems remaining in the temperature records1.

But let's assume for argument's sake that Douglass et al. (2007) are correct and there is a real difference between the models and the observations in the tropical troposphere. In this situation, nobody would yet know why the models don't follow the observations in tropics. Yet, you claim that Douglass et al. "essentially disproves that CO2 has the cause of the 20th century warming". How would you know that it is specifically the CO2 that is wrong instead of numerous other possibilities? Douglass et al. discuss possible differences in tropical temperatures between the models and the observations, and they don't even mention CO2 in their paper. Claiming that CO2 effects are ruled out based on this paper is false.

Even if you believe that Douglass et al. is correct, you need to ask why it is happening only in tropics, where (coincidentally) the distribution of radiosondes is sparse. You also need to ask what other causes there might be for models to be wrong (that is, if they even would be wrong) only in tropics. Could there be some grand but yet local phenomenon that might be difficult to model, such as some large oscillation? Instead of asking these questions, you are leaping to a conclusion that CO2 is not causing warming. I find your approach very unscientific.

Besides, in order to show warming effects of CO2 false, you would need to show why all of our laboratory and atmosphere infrared measurements relating to properties of CO2 are wrong.


The 20th century warming has stopped. Why?
It's because we have entered to the era of 21st century warming.


In one year the "weather" has returned to the cold of the 1970's.
Well, let's just see what what the measurements show (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif). Do you notice any difference between the global temperature of 2008 and global temperature of 1970s? Or, are you claiming that during these couple of months of 2009, the global long time mean temperature has dropped 0.5K (which would be by far the record-breaking change in global temperatures since 1880, and how would you even show that long time mean had dropped during last months)? But hang on, just recently I linked to a diagram from GISS showing monthly global temperatures (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif), that diagram shows also one month of 2009 and there's no sign of temperature droppage yet, so this drop back to 1970's temperatures has to have happened during one month (February). Oh, and by the way, in this northern country where I live, the winter was standard warm 2000's winter.

[Stroller]

nobody is claiming that greenhouse gases were always the dominant driver behind global temperature changes. But currently they are.

That is not a matter of fact, it is an assertion, the correctness or otherwise of which is the subject of this debate.

Dr Roy Spencer, and eminently well qualified climate scientist said something along the lines of:
"I have yet to see any evidence that the modern warming cannot be explained by natural variation"

It is up to the protagonists of the theory of AGW to prove their case, since the null hypothesis of no anthropogenic forcing fits the data within the limits of natural temperature variation.

Although Ari provides many links to many pal reviewed papers, it is the case that the only 'proof' of AGW comes from computer models which are by the IPCC's own admission in chapter 2 of AR4, deficient in many respects. These models have either failed to predict climate or are given sufficiently wide error ranges to render them useless for the purpose of proving the AGW theory.

Furthermore, the models rely on an outdated and superseded notion of solar forcing which when removed from the models makes it even more difficult for them to create an accurate hindcast without lowing the claimed sensitivity of climate to co2.

Meanwhile, empirical data continues to confound the proposition that co2 is a strong driver of climate.

The ARGO ocean data, even after 'correction', and according to Josh Willis who collates the data, shows "a slight cooling since 2003"

The four main surface and satellite based temperature indices show on average, have been flat since 2003 and shown a steep decline in temperature since 2005 of 0.2C. Six years is not inter-annual variability no matter how much the AGW proponents huff and puff about weather.

Sea levels have on average dropped since a maximum was hit in 2005 according to Colorado university. Sea levels were some 30 metres lower 9000 years ago, rose steeply until around 4000 years ago, and have been tailing off in increase since. They are the consequence of the melting of the glaciers formed in the last ice age, and it will take at the C20th average rate another 20,000 years for sea levels to increase until all the ice is melted.

Paltridge et al have recently published a paper showing that humidity levels in the upper troposphere have dropped since 1948, removing half the climate sensitivity claimed by AGW theory through water vapour feedback. (yes I know radiosonde data is problematic and so do they. The satellite data used by AGW proponents is equally problematic, the science is not settled in this area.)

Co2 continues it's steady upward plod of around 5ppm per year. Without the support of water vapour positive feedback which maybe isn't happening after all, it does very little to change the temperature of the earth, as simple well known physics amply demonstrates.

[nauthiz]

There are thousands of papers supporting anthropogenic warming by greenhouse gases.

All we need to know that every last one of those papers is bunk is this one 2007 paper which doesn't really contradict AGW in any kind of clear way, and that readily admits in its own abstract that its conclusions are at odds with the conclusions of all the other teams who have reported on the same data set, which, incidentally, happens to be a rather crummy data set to begin with.

[William]

Which one?

Which everyone agrees on, but again you didn't provide references.

See below.

Once again, nobody is claiming that greenhouse gases were always the dominant driver behind global temperature changes. But currently they are.

What point is there only to say that you can provide the papers? Just provide them. Although, I have already said that sun is thought to have been a major player in past climate changes, and that doesn't take away the role of greenhouse gases in this current change.

Go ahead and show the data, and the study that goes along with it. Why one always needs to ask you these references before you provide them?

One thing you need to remember here is that albedo changes are expected also when greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Also, measuring just albedo change and calculating it's forcing directly is not enough. One has to know the cause to albedo changes, because there are causes for albedo change that are not so easy to determine how much forcing they are causing, such as clouds.

Ari,

OK, here are some of the facts that form the linked argument.

1. In the past there are major periods in last 1.2 million and in the last 200 million years where CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature changes. I can provide a link to multiple papers if you wish. What I am saying is not disputed by the scientific community. The complete lack of simple correlation directly challenges the current CO2 warming hypothesis and mechanism. There is no explanation for the data and lack of correlation.

2. No one is disputing the "CO2 Greenhouse" effect for initial CO2. If you use the IPCC's very optimistic equation (the equation is disputed) the direct warming affect due to a doubling of CO2 is 0.7C. The question is how does that get multiplied to a 3C +/- 1.5C rise. Look at point 1. Something is incorrect with the science. Quoting the number of text books that say something or the number of scientists that say something does not solve the scientific paradox. They and you are ignoring paradox 1.

3. There is evidence that the Milankovitch hypothesis has no basis in science. It is an urban myth. As noted in Wunsch's paper there is at most 20% correlation between temperature changes and insolation changes which is less than chance. There is no qualitative support for the Milankovitch hypothesis. There is a major first order climate forcing function that is causing the glacial/interglacial cycle. I provided a link to Kaplan's paper that provides data that shows that both Northern and Southern Hemispheres simultaneously cool and warm which absolutely rules out "ocean currents" which take 1000's of years for the Northern Hemisphere changes to affect Southern Hemisphere besides the forcing effect being a couple of orders of magnitude less than what is required to cool and warm the entire planet. (The tropics are also effected.)

4. Abrupt climate change. There are a series of abrupt cooling periods in the paleoclimatic record. The urban myth was that these abrupt cooling periods were caused by abrupt stoppage of the Atlantic Drift current. No one provided a mechanism as to what could possibly cause the Atlantic Drift current to abruptly turn off and on. I provided a link to Seager's paper that shows basic modelling shows that Wally Broecker's Climate is an Angry Beast hypothesis is an urban myth.

5. I provided a link to Douglass et al's paper that shows tropical tropospheric temperatures have not warmed which is in direct disagreement of the predicted temperature from the general climate models. As noted in the RealClimate blog on Douglass et al's paper if that finding is correct, then the predicted 3C rise is not correct. You provided a link to "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds" by R. Allen and S. Sherwood which does address Douglass et al's data or conclusion. i.e. Douglass et are using published temperature data. I provide a 2009 paper that used 2007 and 2008 temperature data that suppports Douglass et al's conclusion.

6. Lastly is the planet now cooling or warming. 70% of the planet is covered with water. The temperature measurement you provided is biased and contaminated by urban heat islands, it shows a warming of 0.44C as compared to the much published 0.7C maximum temperature anomaly. The data you provide shows the planet is cooling. How much cooling would convince you that the CO2 hypothesis is incorrect? What is the maximum cooling that could now occur?

Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change


http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277379104000575


The so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, that much of inferred past climate change is a response to near periodic variations in the earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun, has attracted a great deal of attention. Numerous textbooks (e.g., Bradley, 1999; Wilson et al., 2000; Ruddiman, 2001) of varying levels and sophistication all tell the reader that the insolation changes are a major element controlling climate on time scales beyond about 10,000 years. A recent paper begins ‘‘It is widely accepted that climate variability on time scales of 1000 to 100,000 years is driven primarily by orbital, or so-called Milankovitch, forcing.’’ (McDermott et al., 2001).


A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are reexamined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size and near-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods.



http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1


The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth by Richard Seager


If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe's mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.

[mugaliens]

For the umpteenth time, weather and climate are not the same thing.

You're right - they're not:

weather - the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetnessor dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

climate - the average course or conditions of the weather at a place usually over a period of years

Looking at the weather of one region--and in whatever country you live, it's still small relative to the size of the Earth--does not and cannot stand in for the accumulated effects around the world.

If you're implying that weather is what happens locally and climate is the geographic sum of weather over the globe, you're wrong. Climate is the mean, variation, and distribution of the weather occuring within any specific geographic region over time. Thus, one can talk about the current weather in Houston, as well as Houston's typical climate. One can also talk about both global weather and global climate.


Further, you have also been told that you cannot make predictions based on what happens one year, since climate is a chaotic system.

It's easy to predict certain aspects of chaotic systems, provided one understands them and the limits of the prediction. For example, given one year of weather, I can easily, and very accurately (nearly 100% certainty) predict the summer will be warmer than the winter. But that's not very specific... So, I could predict with reasonable accuracy (95% C.I.) that Houston's daytime highs in the month of June will range between 73 and 94, 90% of the time, with absolute variations between 47 and 105.

Just because a system is chaotic doesn't mean it's unpredictable. Chaos in weather makes it impossible for me to predict whether the peak high in Houston on June 1 will be above or below it's 77 def F mean. Yet there remain many things about which I can predict with absolute certainty.

In order for a system to be classed as chaotic, it but be sensitive to initial conditions (butterfly effect), it must be topologically mixing (blurry/mixed result), and it's periodic orbits must be dense ().

Linear systems are never chaotic. Many aspects of chaotic systems are often highly predictible due to the presence of attractors.

Let's take a pendulum for example - it's a chaotic system! Here's how: The pendulum may average 1 swing per second. However, it varies from that mean enough so that precisely 1,000 seconds later, the pendulum will probably not be in the same section of it's arc. After 1,000,000 swings, it's position will be chaotically pseudorandom (impossible to predict). Yet we can predict with absolute confidence that the duration of its 1,000,000th swing will be 1 second +/- 1/1,000th of a second.


You know, the more I listen to AGW skeptics, the harder it is to take any of them seriously.

The more I hear AGW supporters talk about chaotic systems such as the weather and the resulting climate, I feel much the same way. :)

[Gillianren]

If you're implying that weather is what happens locally and climate is the geographic sum of weather over the globe, you're wrong. Climate is the mean, variation, and distribution of the weather occuring within any specific geographic region over time. Thus, one can talk about the current weather in Houston, as well as Houston's typical climate. One can also talk about both global weather and global climate.

Yes. I know. However, it is inaccurate to say "it was really cold this winter, so our climate hasn't warmed," because data can have outliers. Further, "it was really cold here this winter, so global warming isn't happening" is equally inadequate, because it doesn't take into account anything but one cold winter in one place.


It's easy to predict certain aspects of chaotic systems, provided one understands them and the limits of the prediction. For example, given one year of weather, I can easily, and very accurately (nearly 100% certainty) predict the summer will be warmer than the winter. But that's not very specific... So, I could predict with reasonable accuracy (95% C.I.) that Houston's daytime highs in the month of June will range between 73 and 94, 90% of the time, with absolute variations between 47 and 105.

So you can predict that the temperature will fall within a 21-point spread? 90% of the time?


Just because a system is chaotic doesn't mean it's unpredictable. Chaos in weather makes it impossible for me to predict whether the peak high in Houston on June 1 will be above or below it's 77 def F mean. Yet there remain many things about which I can predict with absolute certainty.

90% of the time, right?


The more I hear AGW supporters talk about chaotic systems such as the weather and the resulting climate, I feel much the same way. :)

Your explanation of chaos is fascinating. However, it doesn't go toward the basic fact that you can't use one data point to extrapolate anything, or even a group of data points clustered over a relatively small region. We here have had an unusually harsh winter, with more snow on the ground than has been seen here in a very long time. This would imply to William that global warming cannot be happening, even though that data point must also be balanced by the fact that our summers have been getting consistently hotter over the last half-dozen or so years. That isn't proof of global warming either, of course, because it's still only data from one place. When William claims such things as proof that global climate isn't changing, he makes himself look inadequate to the task of understanding how things work.

Which is not, incidentally, meant to imply that I'm anything of an expert. I'm not. Frankly, my acceptance of AGW is fairly intuitive. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere. We know global temperatures, contrary to what William says, have been on the rise for some time. Ergo . . . .

[danscope]

Hi Gillian, Well said.
Best regards,
Dan

[Stroller]

Frankly, my acceptance of AGW is fairly intuitive. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere. We know global temperatures, contrary to what William says, have been on the rise for some time. Ergo . . . .

....Correlation is not causation.

Not that co2 correlates particularly well with temperature anyway. And where it does, it lags behind temperature at all timescales. To use the jargon, co2 is more often a feedback than a forcing. The accepted mainstream physics shows that co2 of itself can't change temperatures very much at all, around 0.6C per doubling of concentration at most. The models rely on a hypothetical positive feedback of water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas, but this is being proven to be incorrect by empirical observation.

Global temperatures tend to go up for 30 years, then down for 30 years, on a 60 year oceanic cycle. Underlying this is a longer term cycle of around 172 years, which probably peaked at about the same time as the last 30 year upswing to around 2003. Ray tomes, an expert on cycles and harmonics, banned by this forum, offered the following graph derived from 5 cycles on one of the earlier global warming threads:

http://ray.tomes.biz/global-temp-cycles-human.png
http://ray.tomes.biz/global-temp-cycles-human.png

This doesn't 'prove' anything, but it demonstrates how cycles can interact to produce variations in a climate system. Personally, I think Ray has it pretty well nailed, but only time will tell.

[jlhredshift]

Which is not, incidentally, meant to imply that I'm anything of an expert. I'm not. Frankly, my acceptance of AGW is fairly intuitive. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere. We know global temperatures, contrary to what William says, have been on the rise for some time. Ergo . . . .


My bold.

Unfortunately that is where I have a problem with AGW proponents. On an "intuitive feeling" what comes after the "ergo" affects peoples lifestyles through action of a government. Proving to me that the former justifies the later is my issue.


We know global temperatures, contrary to what William says, have been on the rise for some time.

True only to the extent that we are in an interstadial since the LGM and a change in direction will occur at some time in the future.

[William]

We have had 20 years of warm weather. Yes we all agree that is a fact.

I would like to hear from the global warming proponents concerning the following.

This graph shows how the planet’s temperature has changed over the last 5 million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

When you look at this graph what do you think? Is the planet’s climate stable or unstable when it is warm? What is the duration of the interglacial periods? Do they end gradually or abruptly based on this data?

Insolation at 60 degree North latitude is currently the same as it was during the coldest part of the last glacial cycle. The conditions are set awaiting the event that causes a massive forcing change. I can provide a link to a review paper that discusses the discovery of abrupt cyclic climate change (Rapid Climatic Change Events or also referred to as "RICKIES").

Climate in the last 2000 years.

What caused the Little Ice Age? What Caused the Medieval warm period?

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


Little Ice Age


It is not certain if the LIA was a global phenomenon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as "a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C," and suggests that "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe"[5] However, there is also evidence that a cooling period in the time frame of the LIA also occurred in the Southern Hemisphere[6][7][8][9][10][3]

And lastly what forcing factor causes both hemispheres to simultaneously warm and cool?

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100348&org=ATM


And, said Kaplan, "During the last two times in Earth's history when glaciers formed in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods." The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past.



The implications of the new work, say the study authors, support a different hypothesis: Rapid cooling of the Earth's atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs. "Because the Earth is oriented in space in such a way that the hemispheres are out of phase in the amount of solar radiation they receive, it is surprising to find that the climate in the Southern Hemisphere cooled off repeatedly during a period when it received its largest dose of solar radiation," says Singer. "Moreover, this rapid synchronization of atmospheric temperature between the polar hemispheres appears to have occurred during both of the last major ice ages that gripped the Earth."

[mugaliens]

Yes. I know. However, it is inaccurate to say "it was really cold this winter, so our climate hasn't warmed," because data can have outliers. Further, "it was really cold here this winter, so global warming isn't happening" is equally inadequate, because it doesn't take into account anything but one cold winter in one place.

My bad, Gillianren - you've got it!


So you can predict that the temperature will fall within a 21-point spread? 90% of the time?

It depends on the city, but for Houston in June, yes.


Your explanation of chaos is fascinating. However, it doesn't go toward the basic fact that you can't use one data point to extrapolate anything, or even a group of data points clustered over a relatively small region.

Or period of time...


When William claims such things as proof that global climate isn't changing, he makes himself look inadequate to the task of understanding how things work.

You'd be amazed at how many data points are required before certain individuals in the government begin calling it a "trend." (2) Of course, their understanding of statistics is somewhat vaporous, and fortunately, most people who work in the government know enough about statistics to know they don't know enough about statistics.


Which is not, incidentally, meant to imply that I'm anything of an expert. I'm not.

Then you're in a much better category than some!


Frankly, my acceptance of AGW is fairly intuitive. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're putting a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere. We know global temperatures, contrary to what William says, have been on the rise for some time. Ergo . . . .

On the face of it, it follows that...

And I'm with you. Heck, I believed it myself for several years, learning all the salient points from the many dutifully-written pieces on radio, TV, and the various sci-tech journals. In one of my former lifetimes over the last 20 years I became the systems expert, and quickly learned that even simple systems are more complex than most people realize, while complex systems are more complex than even the top experts on the planet can hope to model.

Compared to Earth's climate, the stock market is relatively simple. Experts have nailed that one several times, developing predictive models that work exceptionally well. Until they don't. The simple act of correctly predicting the system and making some money off it is enough to induce corrections which render it unpredictable.

The climate is a bit different, in that there aren't 10,000 cream of the crop experts all seeking to extract the last buck from the system, and where the top 5% are exceptionally good at doing so. Instead, there are perhaps 1,000,000 different organisms and perhaps 300 non-organic systems including several which originate off-planet, all of which have either a measurable impact on our climate or play a pivotal role in the nature and severity of the impacts and interrelationships between the other factors.

As the number of components increases, the maximum number of relations increases, as follows:

1 - 0 (A is affected by nothing else)
2 - 2 (A affects B, and B affects A)
3 - 6 (each of A, B, and C are affected by two others)
4 - 12
5 - 20
6 - 30
...

It's essentially the number of nodes times the previous number of nodes. Thus, for 100 nodes, it's 9,900 relations, but for, say, 300 processes and just the top 1,000 organisms, that's a maximum of 89,700 x 999,000 = 89,610,300,000 relations. Nearly 90 billion. And we're supposed to model these?

No way.

So what we do is simplify the models by selecting those factors which have the most impact. This is where the flaws begin, so I'll repeated it: We simplify the models by selecting those factors which have the most impact.

In so doing, we leave out those factors which have minimal impact by themselves (such as sunspots) but in so doing we also leave out the major effects those factors have with respect to the ability of other factors to influence our model!

What factor do sunspots affect which results in a high correlation between sunspots and mean temperatures? While we honestly don't know, that in no way negates the fact that this phenomenon is happening, and has happened many times before over the last several thousand years. We don't even know if it's sunspots. Could be something else is causing both the sunspots and a change in our climate. Could also be that something else is causing the sunspots which, in turn, effect a change in our climate. If the latter, there are at least two unknowns.

Imagine how many additional unknowns there are which, by themselves, fall below the recognition threshold for inclusion in the models, but which nevertheless have a significant secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary effect on the climate.

By comparison, we're still not entirely sure what happens with the gases upon reentry conditions, and that involves a small volume of well-known gases under well-known conditions, reentry shapes, compositions, and velocities. Perhaps 17 variables, total, for a system with less than 300 relations.

You know how we fill in the gaps in our knowledge? We test the system - we lauch rockets with exactingly designed and measured reentry vehicles outfitted with more instrumentation that a vet slaps on a sick duck and we test it. Then, we analyze the results for about a year, make some design modifications and test it again.

While we're getting exceptionally good it predicting what shapes and materials will result in what outcomes, we still don't know precisely why. Boeing with all their computer-aided design capability (by far the best, most accurate, and complex in the entire CAD/CAM business) is still putting out corrective fixes for their aircraft because the original designs have proven unsatisfactory under real world conditions.

And that's just an airplane, many orders of magnitude less complex than our planet.

I'm about a third of the way through the IPCC reports (currently on Stabilization of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological and Socio-Economic Implications), and I am finding comments throughout the reports such as "Currently, it is not possible to integrate this information into an assessment of global impacts associated with different stabiliation levels of emissions trajectories, because regional scale climate change projections are unceartain, our ...."

The underlying theme is that the approach is linear. All the graphs for things such as emission trajectories I've seen have been linear. Yet natural systems are not linear - they are chaotic, which means that under certain conditions portions of them are linear, but crossing certain boundaries, repleate throughout nature, results in chaotic outcome.

For example, bringing three liquids up in temperature will result in their color turning from white to purple.

Unless the concentration of one of those chemicals, the one which has the least presence, about 10 ppm, is about 1% greater. Then the mixture turns pink.

Ok - oversimplified analogy, I know. My point is that tiny changes can have huge effects, and while we're aware of many of those potential butterfly effects, there are a great many more out there which do have an affect on climate and which have not yet discovered (or we have but simply don't know what we've got, yet).

Complicated? yeah...

[Gillianren]

My bad, Gillianren - you've got it!

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, really.


It depends on the city, but for Houston in June, yes.

I'm just saying that "it's 90% likely to fall within this 21-degree spread" isn't really much of a prediction. At least, not much of a useful one.


The climate is a bit different, in that there aren't 10,000 cream of the crop experts all seeking to extract the last buck from the system, and where the top 5% are exceptionally good at doing so. Instead, there are perhaps 1,000,000 different organisms and perhaps 300 non-organic systems including several which originate off-planet, all of which have either a measurable impact on our climate or play a pivotal role in the nature and severity of the impacts and interrelationships between the other factors.

Yes. However, how that obviates the known mechanism of CO2, I cannot say.

[mugaliens]

I'm just saying that "it's 90% likely to fall within this 21-degree spread" isn't really much of a prediction. At least, not much of a useful one.

It might be useful if you're deciding whether to take a light sweater for the evening or a heavy jacket!


Yes. However, how that obviates the known mechanism of CO2, I cannot say.

It's not that it obviates what we know of CO2. Rather, it helps us realize that manmade CO2 is but one piece in a very large puzzle that's much more complicated and less well-understood than than most people are either aware or are willing to admit.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Dr Roy Spencer, and eminently well qualified climate scientist said something along the lines of:
"I have yet to see any evidence that the modern warming cannot be explained by natural variation"
Reference?

At any case, this is just an appeal to authority. But, if you wish to emphasize his opinion in this matter, it is relevant to mention that Spencer is a known creationist (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/).


It is up to the protagonists of the theory of AGW to prove their case,...
AGW theory has been already "proven" in the scientific literature. It is up to denialists to back up their own claims, but that is just not happening. Where are the papers that clearly show the big picture false? I don't mean the papers that make a big deal about some semi-meaningless statistical issue of some single paper, but I mean papers that show the whole issue of greenhouse gas caused global warming wrong. Compared to amount of noise in message forums and blogs, climate scepticism is practically non-existant in scientific literature of the climate science.


...since the null hypothesis of no anthropogenic forcing fits the data within the limits of natural temperature variation.
Yet again a claim without reference, so it's worthless.


Although Ari provides many links to many pal reviewed papers, it is the case that the only 'proof' of AGW comes from computer models...
Rubbish. Most of the papers I have linked to have been based on observations. This is just an often repeated standard "argument" of denialist community that there wouldn't be anything in the issue except models, while in reality the whole thing is very firmly based on huge amount of observations.

Let's add couple of papers that are observation based:

- Hansen et al. (2005) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html) - a measurement that confirms the energy imbalance which was predicted by a climate model.

- Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) (http://www.gis.usu.edu/~mikew/awer3820/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf) - the classic paper that determined the values for Earth's energy budget from atmospheric observations, figure 7 might look familiar. They have also published an update (Trenberth et al., 2008) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf).


...which are by the IPCC's own admission in chapter 2 of AR4, deficient in many respects. These models have either failed to predict climate or are given sufficiently wide error ranges to render them useless for the purpose of proving the AGW theory.
Ahh, yes, now we make a big deal about uncertainties which are present in all of science. On models and their predictions, see this page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm).


Furthermore, the models rely on an outdated and superseded notion of solar forcing which when removed from the models makes it even more difficult for them to create an accurate hindcast without lowing the claimed sensitivity of climate to co2.
Yet another claim about models, and of course without references... speaking of models, do you still think that "convection of heat through the effective co2 layer is ignored by models" (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-17.html#post1445949)? Do you still think that there is no oscillations in the climate models?


Meanwhile, empirical data continues to confound the proposition that co2 is a strong driver of climate.
No reference here either.


The ARGO ocean data, even after 'correction', and according to Josh Willis who collates the data, shows "a slight cooling since 2003"

The four main surface and satellite based temperature indices show on average, have been flat since 2003 and shown a steep decline in temperature since 2005 of 0.2C. Six years is not inter-annual variability no matter how much the AGW proponents huff and puff about weather.
Yep, it's just weather, and no more meaningful than claiming that global warming has stopped because today was colder than yesterday. There's nothing special about this time compared to other times when ocean temperatures have dropped briefly. This is not longest or steepest cooling event in last few decades, and still the warming trend has continued after them, see here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm). Oh, and these claims of yours also need a decent reference.


Sea levels have on average dropped since a maximum was hit in 2005 according to Colorado university.
No reference... See here again (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm), there is a graph (figure 5) made from the data of University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/). No maximum in 2005, and quite steady sea level rise since 2003.


Sea levels were some 30 metres lower 9000 years ago,...
Reference?


...rose steeply until around 4000 years ago,...
Reference?


...and have been tailing off in increase since.
Reference?


They are the consequence of the melting of the glaciers formed in the last ice age,...
Reference?


...and it will take at the C20th average rate another 20,000 years for sea levels to increase until all the ice is melted.
Reference?


Paltridge et al have recently published a paper showing that humidity levels in the upper troposphere have dropped since 1948, removing half the climate sensitivity claimed by AGW theory through water vapour feedback.
Reference?


The satellite data used by AGW proponents is equally problematic,...
Reference? What satellite data specifically?


Co2 continues it's steady upward plod of around 5ppm per year. Without the support of water vapour positive feedback which maybe isn't happening after all, it does very little to change the temperature of the earth, as simple well known physics amply demonstrates.
Reference?

[jlhredshift]

Sea levels were some 30 metres lower 9000 years ago, rose steeply until around 4000 years ago,




Reference?

You need a reference?

Start with Hopkins, 1973, pg 524 Quaternary Research, "...shortly after 10,000 B. P. (c,d) stages of Holocene sea level rise in Bearing straight, at minus 38 meters and minus 30 meters respectively."

Also: (http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Atlantic/Task3sl.htm)



Early Holocene Sea-Level Rise and Origin of Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States with a mean depth of ~8 m and a deep channel 20-50 m deep. The main channel is a remnant of incomplete sediment infilling of the Susquehanna River paleochannel, which was excavated to ca. 50-55 mbsl during the last glacial maximum. Depending on location, approximately 10 - 25 m of Holocene sediments overlie the Cape Charles erosion surface (CCES) formed during glacial low sea level. The bay is well suited to study sea-level variability because regional vertical tectonic movements are negligible. Sea level is currently rising in the bay at about 3.5 mm yr-1, about half of which is due to post-glacial isostatic adjustment in the collapsing forebulge region of the Mid-Atlantic region United States. A mean rate of Holocene isostatic subsidence of ~1.5-1.6 mm yr-1 is known for the Mid-Atlantic region from sea-level curves constructed from radiocarbon-dated basal peats from the Delaware coast and Chesapeake Bay, analyses of tide gauge and radiocarbon-dated sea level curves (Peltier, 1996), and comparison between GPS satellite and tide gauge data.

My Bold

I think it is pretty well established that sea level was lower at the LGM, and rose commensurate with the melting ice sheets, which continues today, albeit at a much reduced rate due to their high latitude. (Reference: That's because its colder up there.)

[Klausnh]

This thread is started to record global temperature changes March 2008 to March 2009 and significant climatic change observations in the same period.

Based on the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize, the planet should cool to roughly 1880 temperatures by March 2009, if the change matches the largest estimate of the cloud forcing function (Svensmark’s) and if the solar magnetic cycle moves to a Dalton minimum. (Based on the slope of past abrupt climate changes and assuming past abrupt climate changes were driven by solar magnetic field changes. See comments, for caveat. The solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds hypothesis is still being evaluated, by the scientific community.)

The following is a graph that shows how global temperature has increased in the 20th century. Also included is a monthly global temperature deviation table that shows the first indication of global cooling (2008 February, cooling of about 0.35C to about 0.12C.)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/graphs/Fig.C.txt

The Baud thread “solar cycle 24” outlines how changes to the solar magnetic field are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover. The paleoclimatic data shows that there are periodic abrupt drops in planetary temperature which correlate with solar magnetic field changes, but there has not been until the 21th century a hypothesized mechanism as to how solar magnetic cycle changes could possibly affect the earth’s temperature.

As noted in the Baud solar cycle 24 thread there are also a minority of solar physics that are predicting that cycle 24 will be move to a Dalton minimum (period of low solar magnetic cycle activity.) As noted in the same thread, there is observational evidence that supports the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.

There are a minority of scientists (Svensmark, Shiva, and so forth) who have stated that a significant portion of the 20th century warming is due to solar magnetic field changes that increase or decrease the total amount of planetary cloud cover. (A link to Svensmark’s paper is provided below. See comments, for caveat.)

The following is Svensmark’s paper “Cosmoclimatology”. (The Baud thread solar cycle 24 is a better summary.)

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A(svensmark )&cookieSet=1

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2007.48118.x

Comments:
1) Although papers have been written to support the solar magnetic modulation of cloud hypothesis and there is data to support that hypothesis, this subject is not resolved and there have been critical papers written that challenge the solar cloud modulation papers.

2) There are historic observations from the turn of the 19th century that can be used to predict how the climate in different regions would change if the planetary temperatures drop to 1880 levels by March 2009.We're not anywhere near planetary temperatures of 1880. Are you willing to admit that the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize has been discredited?

[kzb]

As a bit of an aside, in the UK we are up to about 1 TRILLION pounds (c. 1.4 Trillion USD) bail-outs for the banks, and it's the same story in the USA.

What could we have for that kind of money? I'm guessing a complete new carbon-neutral transport network, all energy supplied by nuclear/renewables, nuclear fusion etc.

A complete transformation to a carbon-neutral society, plus as bonuses, a cure for cancer and a man on Mars could be delivered for these kind of sums.

Just shows where the real priorities of our lords and masters are doesn't it?

[William]

We're not anywhere near planetary temperatures of 1880. Are you willing to admit that the solar magnetic field modulation of cloud hypothesize has been discredited?

Yes your comment, "We're not anywhere near planetary temperatures of 1880" is correct. There is however this winter the first significant evidence of cooling.

No. I believe that hypothesis is still valid, however, there appears to be other mechanisms involved. It probably would make sense to defer reaching a conclusion until there is more data and analysis. I am also looking for new papers that attempt to explain what is happening.

These periods of abrupt planetary warming and cooling certaintly have a cause.

If the data disproves the solar forcing hypothesis, I will accept the data. I am only interested in scientific theories. It is possible that hypothesis is not valid but it is pecular that the solar grand minimums coincide with the abrupt cooling events. (i.e. To me there is smoking gun evidence, the question seems to be mechanism.)

The current solar observations are anomalous. As I noted in the solar thread, there is a peculiar correlation of volcanic eruptions with solar minimums. If you look at the last paper at the end of my last comment in that thread there is also correlation of the very cold cylic planetary events with volcanic eruptions. 99.6% correlation.

[Ari Jokimaki]

1. In the past there are major periods in last 1.2 million and in the last 200 million years where CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature changes. I can provide a link to multiple papers if you wish. What I am saying is not disputed by the scientific community. The complete lack of simple correlation directly challenges the current CO2 warming hypothesis and mechanism. There is no explanation for the data and lack of correlation.
Nobody is claiming that CO2 has been the dominant driver of past climate changes, like I have already said. However, claiming that there is no correlation whatsoever in the past is false. Current understanding is that CO2 has been positive feedback (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) to pre-existing warming. That means there indeed has been some correlation between CO2 and temperature. It also demonstrates that CO2 can cause warming to the climate; if something adds CO2 to the atmosphere, it warms the climate. In the past, one reason for CO2 rise has been warming oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, currently the CO2 source is mankind. So, as you can see, there is an explanation for the data.


2. No one is disputing the "CO2 Greenhouse" effect for initial CO2. If you use the IPCC's very optimistic equation (the equation is disputed) the direct warming affect due to a doubling of CO2 is 0.7C. The question is how does that get multiplied to a 3C +/- 1.5C rise.
Question is dealt in here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm).


Look at point 1. Something is incorrect with the science.
No, you have misunderstood the science, as can be seen from the real status of the "point 1".


Quoting the number of text books that say something or the number of scientists that say something does not solve the scientific paradox.
Well, usually it's the scientists who work to solve the paradoxes, so quoting them would seem to be the exactly correct thing to do. You of course don't like when scientists are quoted, because science is clearly against your claims. Also, no paradox exists here, as was shown above.


They and you are ignoring paradox 1.
I and them are not ignoring the education from past climate changes, your paradox is not a paradox, and it is you who is not looking at the whole picture.


3. There is evidence that the Milankovitch hypothesis has no basis in science. It is an urban myth. As noted in Wunsch's paper there is at most 20% correlation between temperature changes and insolation changes which is less than chance. There is no qualitative support for the Milankovitch hypothesis. There is a major first order climate forcing function that is causing the glacial/interglacial cycle. I provided a link to Kaplan's paper that provides data that shows that both Northern and Southern Hemispheres simultaneously cool and warm which absolutely rules out "ocean currents" which take 1000's of years for the Northern Hemisphere changes to affect Southern Hemisphere besides the forcing effect being a couple of orders of magnitude less than what is required to cool and warm the entire planet. (The tropics are also effected.)
This was also discussed here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm):


CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg - Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott 2007).


The urban myth was that these abrupt cooling periods were caused by abrupt stoppage of the Atlantic Drift current.
You provided a paper that deals with things in Europe. I thought we were supposed to be dealing with global climate here. I don't think anyone is claiming that abrupt global cooling periods were caused by Atlantic Drift.


5. I provided a link to Douglass et al's paper that shows tropical tropospheric temperatures have not warmed which is in direct disagreement of the predicted temperature from the general climate models. As noted in the RealClimate blog on Douglass et al's paper if that finding is correct, then the predicted 3C rise is not correct. You provided a link to "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds" by R. Allen and S. Sherwood which does address Douglass et al's data or conclusion. i.e. Douglass et are using published temperature data. I provide a 2009 paper that used 2007 and 2008 temperature data that suppports Douglass et al's conclusion.
I didn't notice any 2009 papers, just a blog-entry advertising a submitted paper. Based on the abstract given there, the paper in question only address Santer et al. (2008) paper's methods, they don't seem to address Allen & Sherwood paper. And again, it's the question only of tropics, not the whole planet, and your comment also doesn't address my other arguments on this presented above.


6. Lastly is the planet now cooling or warming. 70% of the planet is covered with water. The temperature measurement you provided is biased and contaminated by urban heat islands,...
Prove it. (The temperature measurements are corrected for urban heating effects (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).)


...it shows a warming of 0.44C as compared to the much published 0.7C maximum temperature anomaly.
What? I provided two diagrams; first one (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif) shows warming that is quite well in line with your 0.7C, and second one (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif) is only from 1996 to present.


The data you provide shows the planet is cooling.
No, the monthly measurements show that from the beginning of 2008 there has been a warming trend.


How much cooling would convince you that the CO2 hypothesis is incorrect?
It is not a question of how much cooling. You would need to show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.


What is the maximum cooling that could now occur?
I don't know, and I'm not interested enough of that question to find out right now.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Regional meteorological observations, in 2007 and 2008 show the first indication of abrupt cooling?

Meanwhile...
Unusual heat in California leads to appalling wildfires.
Unusual heat in Australia leads to appalling wildfires.
While we were shivering in Britain in early Feb, my relatives in the eastern Czech Rep were saying it is quite extraordinarily warm for the time of year, +10C, when normally they would be out skiing.
One of the most extraordinary anecdotes of the whole winter is how the temperature somewhere in Alaska increased by about 50 degrees (thats C not Frankenstein) within about 48 hours.

If I quoted these to show how warm it is just now, I would rightly be criticised. So anecdotes show little.

Also winter extents of sea-ice at the poles show very little, it is summer extents that are revealing, as we are repeatedly told by those who know. See somewhere in first article here
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/jeffmasters/archive.html?year=2009&month=01 for example. Also 15 Jan article further down the page.

If we go back to your original graph, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif all I see is a deviation below mean trend of a magnitude that occurs about once every 10 years. If there was a deviation above trend of that magnitude, as there has often been, (since 1 in 10 year deviations occur about once in 10 years, surprisingly) and people started jumping up and down saying "this (1 in 10 year) unusual upward temperature deviation shows global warming's really taking off now" you would dispose of that for the nonsense that it would be.

So come back when you can demonstrate, d e m o n s t r a t e, a statistically significant trend. Just what is the point of speculating on cooling mechanisms when the alleged cooling you are trying to "explain" is just not statistically significant? Or perhaps you think it is also interesting also to try and explain precisely why 1963 (or some nearby year, I can't read it off the graph) was so much colder than trend?

Some articles on what constitutes statistically significant trends and the futility of giving cold weather record anecdotes here. (In fact new cold records are coming in slowly by historical standards at the moment, not fast.)
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/jeffmasters/archive.html?year=2009&month=02

What disappoints me is that these same points are repeatedly made to William and he comes back and makes precisely the same arguments again, without having addressed the key flaw in them, that a few cold months do not a statistically significant trend make.

[Ivan Viehoff]

There is however this winter the first significant evidence of cooling.
If it is indeed statistically significant, please give evidence. But I expect you didn't mean that.

[William]

Nobody is claiming that CO2 has been the dominant driver of past climate changes, like I have already said. However, claiming that there is no correlation whatsoever in the past is false.

Ari,
Your answer to my six connected logical fundamental points all of which are supported by papers is to provide a link to an AWG blog.

I can provide additional fundamental logical points based on paleoclimatic research, however, I am not sure there is a point to that.

I cannot change your mind or the minds of the others who believe the viewpoint which you are repeating.

Did you see the solar thread. There is no question the sun has abruptly changed. In the past when this happened the planet cooled.

The 8200 BP cooling event was 2C.

To settle this debate all we need do is look for more data.

I am interested in how quickly planetary temperature will drop and I would expect other planetary changes in addition to a drop in temperature. Based on the past there should be concurrent large volcanic eruptions. I would expect other changes and will provide a comment if there is data to support what I expect will happen.

[William]

If it is indeed statistically significant, please give evidence. But I expect you didn't mean that.

Let's keep this thread up to date as the new planetary temperature data becomes available.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Let's keep this thread up to date as the new planetary temperature data becomes available.
Let's not bother until it becomes statistically significant.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Your answer to my six connected logical fundamental points all of which are supported by papers is to provide a link to an AWG blog.
You can hide behind that, or you can actually look what is said there. There are links to papers that show your "fundamental points" 1 and 3 to be false.

But by all means, let's list some papers here as well to consider your claim that there's no correlation with CO2 and temperature in past climate record:

Hansen et al. (2008) (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf) - Determining climate sensitivity from past climate changes:


Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm...
Looks like at least a brief correlation right there...

Cuffey & Vimeux (2001) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html) - Discusses covariation of CO2 and temperature:


This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an important forcing factor for climate.
CO2, a forcing factor... (Too bad this paper is not accessible for free.)

Lea (2004) (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Lea_JofClimate2004.pdf) - Also on climate sensitivity:


The strong correspondence of a proxy SST record from the eastern equatorial Pacific and the Vostok CO2 record suggests that varying atmospheric carbon dioxide is the dominant control on tropical climate on orbital time scales.
Strong correspondence... a correlation perhaps?

Alley (2003) (http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=83073):


Increasing carbon dioxide concentration appears to have globalized deglacial warming,...
Enough?

[Ari Jokimaki]

All we need to know that every last one of those papers is bunk is this one 2007 paper which doesn't really contradict AGW in any kind of clear way, and that readily admits in its own abstract that its conclusions are at odds with the conclusions of all the other teams who have reported on the same data set, which, incidentally, happens to be a rather crummy data set to begin with.
What 2007 paper, and why it makes all other papers bunk?

[Ari Jokimaki]

You need a reference?
Of course. I want to check the claims, so I need data to back them up. Person who throws around numbers should have the references handy (if not making up the numbers), so it would be polite to provide them already when making a claim, but unfortunately in this case one has to ask for references separately.

[rommel543]

I'm in Canada, it's -25c (-36 with windchill) and near middle of March. Right about now I could use a little global warming.

[Gillianren]

What 2007 paper, and why it makes all other papers bunk?

I believe that was what we call "sarcasm."

[Klausnh]

http://ray.tomes.biz/global-temp-cycles-human.png


This doesn't 'prove' anything, but it demonstrates how cycles can interact to produce variations in a climate system. Personally, I think Ray has it pretty well nailed, but only time will tell.
I think some of the members here will get a kick out of another Tomes article (http://ray.tomes.biz/bigbangbung.html):

Big Bang Bung
I hope his understanding of climatology is better than his understanding of the Big Bang.

[William]

You can hide behind that, or you can actually look what is said there. There are links to papers that show your "fundamental points" 1 and 3 to be false.

But by all means, let's list some papers here as well to consider your claim that there's no correlation with CO2 and temperature in past climate record:

Hansen et al. (2008) (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf) - Determining climate sensitivity from past climate changes:


Looks like at least a brief correlation right there...

Cuffey & Vimeux (2001) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html) - Discusses covariation of CO2 and temperature:


CO2, a forcing factor... (Too bad this paper is not accessible for free.)

Lea (2004) (http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Lea_JofClimate2004.pdf) - Also on climate sensitivity:


Strong correspondence... a correlation perhaps?

Alley (2003) (http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=83073):


Enough?

There are multiple periods of 5 to 10 million years through out paleo record when there is no correlation of CO2 vs planetary temperature, for example this older paper by Kump which discusses a lack of correlation 17 million years ago. Hanson just found a period where there was correlation and ignored the periods when there was not. That is not science.

I notice you did not dispute the paper that shows Milankovitch's theory is an urban legend. The big point is there is, a 1000 pound gorilla in the room which is not being discussed. There is a climate forcing mechanism that appears to be able to cause the glacial/interglacial cycle.

I notice you did not comment on the paper by Seager that shows Wally Bruecker's theory (that was obviously never quantified) that the North Atlantic Drift current causes abrupt climate change is also an urban legend.

As I noted there are cosmogenic isotopes that are coincidental with the abrupt cooling events. The standard method to look for the abrupt cooling was to search first for the cosmogenic isotopes. Bond was able to trace 40 cooling periods separated by around 5000 yr to 8000 yr all of which had cosmogenic isotopes (to the limit of the isotope.)

I am curious what explanation will be given when the planet cools. Somehow the joy of being technically correct will be offset by living in a Northern region.



http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-12.html#post1431153


http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf

“Reducing uncertainty about carbon dioxide as a climate driver” Lee R. Kump

Despite these successes in linking variations in greenhouse gas concentrations to climate change in the geologic past, the oxygen isotope palaeotemperature record from 600 Myr ago to the present displays notable intervals for which inferred temperatures and pCO2 levels are not correlated1. One of these occurred during the early to middle Miocene (about 17 Myr ago), a time well established as a warm interval (relative to today), but with proxy evidence for low atmospheric pCO2 (ref. 2). Moreover, whereas climate models predict tropical warming in response to elevated pCO2, geologic data — in particularly the oxygen isotope record — indicate muted warming or even cooling at low latitudes while higher latitudes warm (the ‘cool tropics paradox’10–11). A better understanding of what controls the latitudinal temperature gradient is clearly needed (see review in this issue by Pierrehumbert, pages 191–198).

[William]

I'm in Canada, it's -25c (-36 with windchill) and near middle of March. Right about now I could use a little global warming.


I am also in Canada. -41C, March 9 (without wind chill). That is lowest temperature every measured in this location for March 9. i.e. Coldest day in recorded history. The previous record for March 9th was -22.

[William]

Let's not bother until it becomes statistically significant.

Let's just for fun keep a record.

There maybe some interesting local observations.

Great news! The sea ice anomaly is now zero. Perhaps if we are lucky we can get a big positive balance of ocean ice.

During the Younger Dryas the North Atlantic frozen to the latitude of Mid-Spain. I am curious how the climate of the UK would change if it was surrounded by ice in the winter.

[orionjim]

I am also in Canada. -41C, March 9 (without wind chill). That is lowest temperature every measured in this location for March 9. i.e. Coldest day in recorded history. The previous record for March 9th was -22.

WOW!:eek: The coldest place I have ever been was Sudbury Ontario, it was -40C on March 1st in 1965. I hope I never see that again.

Jim

[Ari Jokimaki]

There are multiple periods of 5 to 10 million years through out paleo record when there is no correlation of CO2 vs planetary temperature,...
So what? You claimed that there was a complete lack of correlation. Even one event of demonstrated correlation is one further proof that CO2 is capable of warming the climate. Also, like I have said many times, it is not expected that CO2 was always dominant factor in climate.


Hanson just found a period where there was correlation and ignored the periods when there was not. That is not science.
This statement shows that you didn't look at the paper at all. That's ok, you are not obligated to look at the papers I provide, but you really shouldn't make claims about them if you don't look at them. Now, let's look at the Hansen et al. paper a little. Look at figure 1. What Hansen et al. have done there is that they have taken the CO2 and CH4 data from Vostok ice core and sea level data from Red Sea sediment cores (see the text with heading "Verification" below figure 1), all shown in figure 1A, and calculated the temperature resulting from their forcing. The result of that is shown in figure 1C with the "observed" temperature from Vostok ice core. See how well they match. They conclude:


Figure 1C shows that fast-feedback climate sensitivity ¾°C per W/m2 (3°C for doubled CO2) is a good approximation for the entire period.
In this small portion of the whole paper they covered the entire period of the last 425 kyr, so it's another period with correlation, but you claimed they only "found a period". Later in the paper you will see that they cover the whole period of last 65 million years also (compare figures 3 and 4, again a great match), so could you now show what periods they ignored specifically?


I notice you did not dispute the paper that shows Milankovitch's theory is an urban legend.
I already addressed your "point 3" about it in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451262). You ignored that.


I notice you did not comment on the paper by Seager that shows Wally Bruecker's theory (that was obviously never quantified) that the North Atlantic Drift current causes abrupt climate change is also an urban legend.
So? I already have showed that some of your "points" are nonsense. And I did comment that the paper dealt with local issues.

I notice that from my last post you selected only one paper, ignored other three, made a gross misinterpretation of that one paper you selected, and based on that you went on pretending that you still have a point. Is that science?

[Ari Jokimaki]

I believe that was what we call "sarcasm."
Oh, I see. I missed that. :o

[Stroller]

Originally Posted by William
There are multiple periods of 5 to 10 million years through out paleo record when there is no correlation of CO2 vs planetary temperature,...

Originally posted by Ari
So what? You claimed that there was a complete lack of correlation. Even one event of demonstrated correlation is one further proof that CO2 is capable of warming the climate.

What a strange argument.
A stopped clock exactly correlates with the correct time twice a day.
Is this proof that the clock is a good proxy for time?

Changes in atmospheric Co2 concentration lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. It is therefore a feedback, not a forcing, an effect, not a cause.

Example: (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/detrend:60/offset:-318/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:5)

Also, winter temperature inversions over places like salt lake city raise co2 levels to around 600ppm. There is no discernible co2 forcing effect on temperatures during the winter.
Link (https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/03/heartland-2-session-three)
"Dr Soon also described the empirical test as to whether extra carbon dioxide will produce extra warming that is conducted in Salt Lake City, and other similar cities, every winter. There, a winter CO2 dome attains CO2 levels up to 500 ppm, as compared to the present background atmospheric level of 380 ppm. Yet no discernible enhanced warming is present in the measured temperature curve for Salt Lake City. It follows that the worldwide rush to inhibit CO2, at huge cost, will have no effect on future climate whatsoever. “The role of CO2 in the climate system is just miniscule”, Dr Soon said."

[Ivan Viehoff]

Let's just for fun keep a record.
Well perhaps that would be better located in "babbling", especially if it includes a lot of random anecdotes.

Another note on the danger of anecdotes. The coldest night (before the present winter) of 20 years of living in my present location occurred on a mid-April night in 2003. It was precisely the same dry, clear conditions that allowed it to get so cold those spring nights that resulted in the daytimes being so warm, and made that year a record breaker for being warm, not cold.

[rommel543]

WOW!:eek: The coldest place I have ever been was Sudbury Ontario, it was -40C on March 1st in 1965. I hope I never see that again.

Jim

The coldest I've seen is in Whitehorse, Yukon when it got down to -52c without windchill. Although I remember walking through snow on my birthday in May when I was growing up.

[Stroller]

Various factors including the record breaking sudden stratospheric warming event in late January have conspired to hold temperatures up recently. If I am reading the data correctly, we will soon see a fairly sharp drop in global average temperature through to a low point in late May. -0.35C from current may not be far off the mark.

Sea surface temperatures are already down 0.2C on last September and will soon fall further given the continuing La Nina conditions and the negative AMO. There is around a 3 to 5 month lag before land/air temps follow, and given the delay in their response due to the SSW event, the fall could be sudden and steep.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/mean:6/scale:2/offset:-0.45/plot/uah/from:2003/mean:6

We only have a few months to wait to see if this is right or wrong so it's not worth getting into a big hooha about right now.

[GOURDHEAD]

These periods of abrupt planetary warming and cooling certaintly have a cause.My guess is that it is an artifact of measuring technique which lacks scientific rigor. It has not been convincing to me that "the gloal average" temperature has ever been determined with rigor. It is surprising to read arguments attributing global effects to El Nino, La Nina, and other regional effects. These regional effects can affect weather for months at a time in the regions where they are deterministic, but should be able to do so without affecting "the global average" temperature. The erosion effects of raised levels of dynamism of wind and water at the land sea interfaces on ice fields might be due more to dynamism than to an increase in "the global average" temperature. This beast has many more heads than the mythical hydra residing in complexity with that of the world financial system.

[nauthiz]

Changes in atmospheric Co2 concentration lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. It is therefore a feedback, not a forcing, an effect, not a cause.

That's a self-contradictory statement. For it to be a feedback mechanism, it must also be a potential cause.

Sure, the geologic record isn't exactly full of examples of CO2 concentration preceding temperature change. But the geologic record isn't exactly full of examples of species that figured out how to rapidly cause a 25% increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration by digging up and burning fossil fuels, either. So just looking at graphs in the geologic record has approximately zero capacity to help us determine if it's possible.


"Dr Soon also described the empirical test as to whether extra carbon dioxide will produce extra warming that is conducted in Salt Lake City, and other similar cities, every winter. There, a winter CO2 dome attains CO2 levels up to 500 ppm, as compared to the present background atmospheric level of 380 ppm. Yet no discernible enhanced warming is present in the measured temperature curve for Salt Lake City. It follows that the worldwide rush to inhibit CO2, at huge cost, will have no effect on future climate whatsoever. “The role of CO2 in the climate system is just miniscule”, Dr Soon said."
What was the predicted level of warming that would be associated with the 25% higher CO2 concentration of that dome over such a short time period? To what extent was the interior of the dome isolated from the exterior - was it a Thermos-like construction with a structure composed of two layers separated by a vacuum, or was there a lot of opportunity for conductive heat transfer between the environment inside the dome and its exterior? How much incedent radiation was being reflected by the dome material itself?

In short, I'd like to have a few more details before deciding how relevant that is. When your experiment contradicts well-established physics, the first thing to check is whether you forgot to control for some variables.

[Stroller]

Sure, the geologic record isn't exactly full of examples of CO2 concentration preceding temperature change. But the geologic record isn't exactly full of species that figured out how to rapidly cause a 25% increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration by digging up and burning fossil fuels

This example (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2001/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1971/to:2001/mean:12/detrend:40/offset:-326.2/scale:0.16) runs from 1970 to 2001. See how the changes in co2 level still lag behind changes in temperature? Even in the age of accelerated human emissions?

[nauthiz]

What would you see in a graph that assesses all forcings, rather than just one of the gajillion variables that feed into the climate according to theory?

That's why I posted a few pages back that what I really want to see is a thorough analysis of what the climatologists are actually using to make these predictions, ie, a complete climate model. Simply comparing a wiggly CO2 line to a wiggly temperature line is either deeply misunderstanding the theory in question or constructing a horrendous straw man.

[Stroller]

What would you see in a graph that assesses all forcings, rather than just one of the gajillion variables that feed into the climate according to theory?

I think you'd have to agree that in the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increased co2 emissions, the temperature and the co2 are pretty fundamental to the issue, rather than just being a couple of the gajillion variables. :)


That's why I posted a few pages back that what I really want to see is a thorough analysis of what the climatologists are actually using to make these predictions, ie, a complete climate model.

Well, I posted the output of GISS model E's data a few pages pack. It shows how much it's prediction from 2005 is diverging from reality...

I agree with you though, I would love to see the Team produce a climate model which accurately represented the climate, rather than fudging the aerosol forcing to get their hindcast to work with an inflated co2 climate sensitivity.

[nauthiz]

I think you'd have to agree that in the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increased co2 emissions, the temperature and the co2 are pretty fundamental to the issue, rather than just being a couple of the gajillion variables. :)
And you'd have to agree that quite a lot of those other variables are also pretty fundamental to the issue, too. :)



Well, I posted the output of GISS model E's data a few pages pack. It shows how much it's prediction from 2005 is diverging from reality...
Has the cause of that divergence been determined? Assuming it has, what are the scientific implications of that knowledge?

[Stroller]

And you'd have to agree that quite a lot of those other variables are also pretty fundamental to the issue, too. :)


Indeed I would, including the ones not even considered by the gross oversimplification of climate the modelers conceive of.


Has the cause of that divergence been determined? Assuming it has, what are the scientific implications of that knowledge?
Opinions on postcards range from:
"it's just weather and warming will be resumed next year with a super el nino"
to "It's now been cooling for longer than it was warming before Jim Hansen scared the house committee into believing the hype".

[nauthiz]

Indeed I would, including the ones not even considered by the gross oversimplification of climate the modelers conceive of.

So if you think the mainstream climate models are a gross oversimplification, then why are you trying to use an even more gross oversimplification to try and refute them?


Opinions on postcards range from:
"it's just weather and warming will be resumed next year with a super el nino"
to "It's now been cooling for longer than it was warming before Jim Hansen scared the house committee into believing the hype".
I'm not wanting opinions on postcards. I'm wanting science - a paper that analyzes that divergence and attributes its causes or something like that.

Without any further information, we don't even know if the model is wrong, let alone how wrong or why. It could be, for example, that some predictions about future forcings made several years back turned out to be wrong and when it's re-run with the correct data the model spits out correct results.

It's really pretty hard to determine anything from that graph you had posted, since, unless there's a later post I missed, you just linked a graph and didn't provide much in the way of additional information about where it came from or how it was constructed, so it's hard to be sure precisely what the data represents.

[Stroller]

So if you think the mainstream climate models are a gross oversimplification, then why are you trying to use an even more gross oversimplification to try and refute them?


I'm not wanting opinions on postcards. I'm wanting science - a paper that analyzes that divergence and attributes its causes or something like that.

Without any further information, we don't even know if the model is wrong, let alone how wrong or why. It could be, for example, that some predictions about future forcings made several years back turned out to be wrong and when it's re-run with the correct data the model spits out correct results.

It's really pretty hard to determine anything from that graph you had posted, since, unless there's a later post I missed, you just linked a graph and didn't provide much in the way of additional information about where it came from or how it was constructed, so it's hard to be sure precisely what the data represents.

It's pretty late here. Chill out with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8hlssVxgZk&annotation_id=annotation_816949&feature=iv) and I'll be more specific tomorrow.

[nauthiz]

I'm not really worked up, I'm just asking the kinds of questions whose answers I need to know in order to try and interpret the information you're providing.

In particular, I'd much rather see sources written by experts who understand the field well enough to explain what it means. We can look at graphs until we're blue in the face, but I personally don't have enough independent knowledge of the subject to be able to draw any reasonable conclusions from one. What I do know, though, it's almost certain that someone who does know what they're doing has looked at data like some of these, and it's very likely that their assessment has been written up and published.

To take the example of the graph from 1970 to 2001, there are a couple of things that strongly discourage me from taking it as particularly compelling evidence. The very first among them is that I have a very hard time believing that those two data sets aren't known to any climatologist who's reasonably up-to-date with the field. And, visually, you're right - it's very obvious that the CO2 line trails the temperature line. It's so obvious that I'm pretty sure anybody who's looked at it has noticed that, scientists included. Yet the consensus among people who make a career of studying this stuff continues to be that CO2 is a major cause of the observed change in global climate. So that begs a question: Is there something I don't fully understand going on, or are climatologists, as a group, really that spectacularly clueless? I'm pretty sure I know which way Occam's Razor cuts on that question. That leads directly to the presumption that this is not surprising news, it is a solved problem.

The second is that there is very likely to be a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes in that graph that I do not fully understand. As you mentioned, there are natural feedback effects (many of them temperature-related) that also influence atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And there is also a whole host of other forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, that also have the capacity to influence climate (which, in turn, influences CO2 concentrations). And a lot of the factors behind those other forcings are also subject to feedback effects which can alter their concentrations. All in all, it's a very complex system and there's no reason to believe that the way it behaves can be summed up in a nutshell. All that together suggests the distinct possibility that the graph is lying. Well, not the graph itself - I certainly don't propose to imply that the data it represents was fabricated. What I mean to say is, within the context of this horrendously complex, chaotic system there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reason to believe that the commonsense conclusions that we would instinctively draw from a graph like that amount to a good description of what's actually going on.

[William]

So what? You claimed that there was a complete lack of correlation. Even one event of demonstrated correlation is one further proof that CO2 is capable of warming the climate. Also, like I have said many times, it is not expected that CO2 was always dominant factor in climate.

This statement shows that you didn't look at the paper at all. That's ok, you are not obligated to look at the papers I provide, but you really shouldn't ...


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Ari,
Could you provide a link to the Hanson paper. Is this the paper?

And please stop linking to the Skeptical Blog.

I presented seven published papers each of which refutes a pillar of the global warming hypothesis.

Your response is to write a simple contradiction sprinkled with adjectives and then provide a link to the Skeptical Blog.

Do you or any of the AWG supports have any valid arguments or logic that is supported by papers?

On the Real Climate site, AWG supports appeal to how long AWG has been stated, or the number of scientists who are doing research in this popular area, to justify their viewpoint.

Others note the IPCC document stated very likely AWG was correct. They are analyzing the grammar of the IPCC document and debate the meaning of the adjectives used.

It appears the AWG supports believe science can be determined by the Aunty Mame principle (Wizard of Oz). Repeat something three times in a very sincere voice and it will come true.

This science not American Idol.

[William]

My guess is that it is an artifact of measuring technique which lacks scientific rigor. It has not been convincing to me that "the gloal average" temperature has ever been determined with rigor. It is surprising to read arguments attributing global effects to El Nino, La Nina, and other regional effects. These regional effects can affect weather for months at a time in the regions where they are deterministic, but should be able to do so without affecting "the global average" temperature. The erosion effects of raised levels of dynamism of wind and water at the land sea interfaces on ice fields might be due more to dynamism than to an increase in "the global average" temperature. This beast has many more heads than the mythical hydra residing in complexity with that of the world financial system.

The abrupt cooling events in the paleo record are outside of recorded human experience. (i.e. Humans lived through and died as a result of the abrupt cooling before written records.) The abrupt climate events are spaced roughly 12000 to 8000 years apart. The magnitude of the change is difficult to explain as there are no current analogies. Hurricane force winds in the winter due to the extreme differential between cold and warm. Very high snow fall along coastal regions at low latitudes that now have rain rather than snow. The snow reduces the planet's albedo and amplifies the change.

There is of course a glacial/interglacial cycle. It seems hard to imagine Canada, Northern States, and Northern Europe covered with an 2 km thick ice sheet.

What we see now is a cooling of the ocean.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.12.2009.gif

[flynjack1]

During January 1998 I was in Grand Forks North Dakota, it was -56 F without wind chill. A funny story about that trip, however to the point of the latest post 1998 was also the "warmest year on record" by all accounts Ive read. New Mexico has been unseasonably warm most of this winter, despite the cold snap in most of the rest of the US. Weather is local. Time will tell whether the cooling trend seen is global or regional only.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Could you provide a link to the Hanson paper. Is this the paper?
Rather strange question, considering that you already presented a claim regarding the Hansen et al. (note the spelling, not Hanson but Hansen) paper. I gave the link in my post (post #535 (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451977)) along with three other papers to which you responded with your claim that Hansen et al. only found one period of correlation and ignored the other periods. Here is the link again. (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf) Why did you make the claim if you hadn't read the paper?


And please stop linking to the Skeptical Blog.
No. If you parrot the claims that already have been answered in that blog, I will link to it. It contains thorough responses to your claims with links to relevant papers on the subject.


I presented seven published papers each of which refutes a pillar of the global warming hypothesis.
Rubbish. You haven't looked at the whole situation, you only offer selected papers but you fail to mention that there are other papers presenting different results than your papers. Just briefly on some of your given papers:

Rothman (2001) (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf) (to which you linked to when you talked about Kump, 2002) finds that CO2 signal resulting from their analysis shows no "systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations". I presented newer paper by Hansen et al. (2008) and three other papers that show correlations. This should be enough to at least raise eyebrows a little.

Kump (2002) (http://faculty.eas.ualberta.ca/wolfe/EAS%20457/EAS%20457%202006%20materials/Kump2002CO2-climate.pdf) finds that there are some periods where CO2 doesn't correlate with climate changes. However, same paper says that: "There is also proxy evidence that greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) have driven more rapid climate shifts." Is it really your belief that if you can show single event of non-correlation with CO2 and climate changes, the CO2 cannot cause current warming? Do you not believe that there can be different causes for climate changes in different times? Hansen et al. + 3 other papers I offered are also relevant here.

Kaplan et al. (2004) (http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~bsinger/Publications/2004.KaplanetalGSABull/Kaplan_Ackert_Singer_Douglass_Kurz_GSA_Bull_2004.p df) says that there was a simultaneous (to both hemispheres) glaciation event about 20000 years ago. William interpreted this to mean that Earth hemispheres warm simultaneously (apparently generally). In the blog I linked to there was a link to a paper by Caillon et al. (2003) (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf) which says: "The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation." There was also a link to a paper by which shows that there was a 1000 year lag between Southern warming and tropical warming. Ironic is that it was exactly this 1000 years that you claimed was missing. Furthermore, Your link was only to a news report, and news reports have a tendency to exaggerate things, and if you look at the Kaplan et al. figure 5 (where Northern hemisphere data is the leftmost curve), you might notice that "simultaneous" is rather relative concept here. You also must be aware that Northern hemisphere data in Kaplan et al. is not from their analysis, it is taken from Shackleton et al. (1990).

[url=http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf]Seager et al. (2002) (]Stott et al. (2007)[/url) claim that ocean is not principal cause for temperature differences between western Europe and eastern North America. William interpreted this so that it is an urban myth that stoppage of Atlantic drift has been cause for abrupt cooling periods in paleoclimatic record. I find that interpretation curious, as Seager et al. are not studying that at all, they are studying that: "Is the transport of heat northward by the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift, and its subsequent release into the midlatitude westerlies, the reason why Europe’s winters are so much milder than those of eastern North America and other places at the same latitude?" This is also emphasized by Wood et al. (2003) (http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/proclima/artigos_dissertacoes/artigos_ingles/globalwarmingandthemohalinecirculationstability.pd f) (see page 3 where they mention Seager et al. paper). Many other papers show evidence for the important role of Atlantic circulation for climate, Alley (2003) (http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=83073) for example: "In looking at the freshening of the North Atlantic, the modelled response to known forcings is sufficiently similar to observed anomaly patterns to support the contention that North Atlantic changes caused abrupt climate changes.".

To summarize, you have selected few papers that seem to support your position, but you haven't studied issues any further, and even misunderstood some of your references.

Also, like I pointed out previously, I have linked to many papers. You have generally ignored them.


Your response is to write a simple contradiction sprinkled with adjectives and then provide a link to the Skeptical Blog.
What exactly you mean by "simple contradiction sprinkled with adjectives"?


Do you or any of the AWG supports have any valid arguments or logic that is supported by papers?
After all the papers I have linked to, and pointed out their relevant arguments, you ask this? I even answered previously to almost exact the same question by you and gave a list of relevant papers I have referred to in the past.


On the Real Climate site, AWG supports appeal to how long AWG has been stated, or the number of scientists who are doing research in this popular area, to justify their viewpoint.
I think we have our own discussion here, perhaps you should concentrate on that.


Others note the IPCC document stated very likely AWG was correct. They are analyzing the grammar of the IPCC document and debate the meaning of the adjectives used.
I don't know what this is about, but I don't think I'm even interested to find out.


It appears the AWG supports believe science can be determined by the Aunty Mame principle (Wizard of Oz). Repeat something three times in a very sincere voice and it will come true.
The discussion is here on record, I think everyone can see themselves who is doing the parroting here.

[Ari Jokimaki]

To take the example of the graph from 1970 to 2001, there are a couple of things that strongly discourage me from taking it as particularly compelling evidence.
It is not compelling evidence. Note that Stroller offered a graph of two datasets, one global and one local. Note also where the local CO2 measurements are made; very far from places where most of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are made, so there's bound to be a delay between the actual emissions and what is shown in Hawaii. Stroller should have offered graph showing both global or both from same local place, but as usual we get these misleading carefully selected graphs from Stroller. Another thing is that it is known that warming causes CO2 content of atmosphere to rise, so it is not surprising to see short time variations in CO2 concentration to lag temperature changes. And these are indeed short time variations that Stroller emphasizes. These lagging variations in CO2 content are probably released from ocean around Hawaii as a reaction to changing temperature.

This graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/detrend/offset:-318/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:100) would be slightly more relevant to the discussion.

I note that Stroller hasn't answered my questions here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1450647) despite having participated heavily to the discussion recently.

[Stroller]

visually, you're right - it's very obvious that the CO2 line trails the temperature line. It's so obvious that I'm pretty sure anybody who's looked at it has noticed that, scientists included. Yet the consensus among people who make a career of studying this stuff continues to be that CO2 is a major cause of the observed change in global climate. So that begs a question: Is there something I don't fully understand going on, or are climatologists, as a group, really that spectacularly clueless? I'm pretty sure I know which way Occam's Razor cuts on that question. That leads directly to the presumption that this is not surprising news, it is a solved problem.

Occams razor works better on logical issues than sociological issues. The Climate careerists had decided that co2 causes temperature change before the ice core data proved they had cause and effect back to front. Ever since the ice core data came out, we have had handwaving arguments presented to try to wriggle around the issue. First it was that the proxies had somehow let us down in terms of the precedence of co2 in temperature covariance. Further ice core data put the lid on that. Then obfuscation, the Team said that Cuffey and Vimeaux had solved the lag problem. They hadn't. Their work tidied up the covariance relationship, but the lag of 800 -2800 years is still there in the data. Then we were told that once warming had started, the co2 rise took over as the driver because of the high sensitivity of climate to co2 concentrations. More and more studies are showing that the climate sensitivity claimed by the modelers is too high. Spencer has shown that clouds are a negative feedback, not a positive feedback as the modelers have them parameterised. Shaviv has shown that there is a direct radiative forcing linked to solar activity which is an order of magnitude higher than previously assumed from TSI. The career climatologists who have nailed their colours to the co2 mast are in denial about these important results.



All in all, it's a very complex system and there's no reason to believe that the way it behaves can be summed up in a nutshell.
or a computer model.


All that together suggests the distinct possibility that the graph is lying. Well, not the graph itself - I certainly don't propose to imply that the data it represents was fabricated. What I mean to say is, within the context of this horrendously complex, chaotic system there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of reason to believe that the commonsense conclusions that we would instinctively draw from a graph like that amount to a good description of what's actually going on.

You can torture the data until it confesses.
Even to crimes it did not commit.

Changes in atmospheric co2 concentrations lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. The cause and effect situation is simple and clear. Use your common sense to cut through the sophistry and obfuscation.
The first 20ppm of co2 in the atmosphere accounts for around half it's effect. It's logarithmic, by the time you get to humans adding 45% of an increase of 30% in a gas which constitutes 0.039% of the atmosphere, the effect is negligible. The latest backpedalling from the career climatologists says that natural variation in the negative phases of oceanic cycles and solar forcing may stall co2 induced global warming for 30 years.

You won't hear them discussing how much of the warming of the last 30 years could have been down to the positive phases of the same natural variation though, because that would blow their pet theory out of the water.
They have $$$billions in research funding and their reputations riding on this, and the govt wants tax money in return for their investment. What does Occam's razor tell you about the likelihood of them admitting they got it all badly wrong?

[Stroller]

It is not compelling evidence. Note that Stroller offered a graph of two datasets, one global and one local. Note also where the local CO2 measurements are made; very far from places where most of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are made, so there's bound to be a delay between the actual emissions and what is shown in Hawaii. Stroller should have offered graph showing both global or both from same local place, but as usual we get these misleading carefully selected graphs from Stroller. Another thing is that it is known that warming causes CO2 content of atmosphere to rise, so it is not surprising to see short time variations in CO2 concentration to lag temperature changes. And these are indeed short time variations that Stroller emphasizes. These lagging variations in CO2 content are probably released from ocean around Hawaii as a reaction to changing temperature.

This graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/detrend/offset:-318/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2009/mean:12/scale:100) would be slightly more relevant to the discussion.



Ari I'm shocked. The Team have always told us what a 'well mixed gas' co2 is. They must have got that wrong then. So you're saying the more concentrated emissions from human locales are leading global temperature to save the forcing claim? I'll look forward to your graph showing that. :)
How good would your co2/temperature correlation look for the 1940-1975 period Ari? Please don't insult everyone's intelligence with spurious 'data' about aerosols. Mauna loa data only runs from 1958 but anyway:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1958/to:1976/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1976/mean:12/offset:-330/scale:0.16

If the co2 round Hawaii is coming from the oceans round Hawaii as they warm, how come co2 increases at a steady rate according to your linked graph while the oceans surfaces have been cooling since 2003?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:2003/to:2001/mean:12/offset:-380/scale:0.16
This 'correlation' looks like an X for fail to me. See what I mean about handwaving arguments Nauthiz?

[Ivan Viehoff]

What we see now is a cooling of the ocean.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.12.2009.gif
You keep on putting in graphics like that as "evidence" of statements like that, but it doesn't do the job. Any footnote to hand will add plausibility. What we seein those graphics is some warmer places and some coolerplaces, and really we need someone to add it up to know what the overall effect is. Also, it is surface temp, and that has its substantial shortcomings as a measure of whether the ocean is cooling.

[cope]

Thanks for the links to woodfortrees.org. I had not previously been there.

As just an interested bystander, I have neither the time nor the knowledge to verify various models or even understand the algorithms used in the various process.

However, I did find this quote from woodfortrees.org interesting:

"Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now 'prove' that:

* Temperature is falling!
* Temperature is static!
* Temperature is rising!
* Temperature is rising really fast!"

[Stroller]

Hadley Met SST from 2003
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

NPR Argo data interview with Josh Willis:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

"In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not."

[heldervelez]

... The abrupt climate events are spaced roughly 12000 to 8000 years apart. The magnitude of the change is difficult to explain as there are no current analogies...


We must understand the Sun ... prior to the next event ...
Aren't we expecting one ?
... 12ky are already gone since last event ...

[Ari Jokimaki]

What a strange argument.
A stopped clock exactly correlates with the correct time twice a day.
Is this proof that the clock is a good proxy for time?

Changes in atmospheric Co2 concentration lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. It is therefore a feedback, not a forcing, an effect, not a cause.
What a nonsense argument. Tell me, if CO2 is capable to cause warming as a "feedback", what would prevent it from working as a "forcing" also? How does a CO2 molecule know that it hasn't been emitted to the atmosphere in feedback conditions, so that it knows not to absorb infrared in that setting?


Also, winter temperature inversions over places like salt lake city raise co2 levels to around 600ppm. There is no discernible co2 forcing effect on temperatures during the winter.
Link (https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/03/heartland-2-session-three)
"Dr Soon also described the empirical test as to whether extra carbon dioxide will produce extra warming that is conducted in Salt Lake City, and other similar cities, every winter. There, a winter CO2 dome attains CO2 levels up to 500 ppm, as compared to the present background atmospheric level of 380 ppm. Yet no discernible enhanced warming is present in the measured temperature curve for Salt Lake City. It follows that the worldwide rush to inhibit CO2, at huge cost, will have no effect on future climate whatsoever. “The role of CO2 in the climate system is just miniscule”, Dr Soon said."
Where is the research publication of this experiment? Why don't you answer the questions made by nauthiz on this?


I agree with you though, I would love to see the Team produce a climate model which accurately represented the climate, rather than fudging the aerosol forcing to get their hindcast to work with an inflated co2 climate sensitivity.
I see we are bad mouthing climate models again. You would love to see? Recently we saw that you haven't studied the climate models at all, when you made the claims that models ignore oscillations (made first here by quoting someone else (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-16.html#post1440177), and then modified here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-16.html#post1440763) because I showed the original was false (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-16.html#post1440749) and then I showed the modified claim to be false too (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-16.html#post1441653)), and that "convection of heat through the effective co2 layer is ignored by models" (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-17.html#post1445949) (which I also showed to be false (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-17.html#post1445949)). Later, I asked you to acknowledge that your claims were false (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1450647), but you have ignored that (along with just about every question that has been presented to you).


Occams razor works better on logical issues than sociological issues. The Climate careerists had decided that co2 causes temperature change before the ice core data proved they had cause and effect back to front. Ever since the ice core data came out, we have had handwaving arguments presented to try to wriggle around the issue. First it was that the proxies had somehow let us down in terms of the precedence of co2 in temperature covariance. Further ice core data put the lid on that. Then obfuscation, the Team said that Cuffey and Vimeaux had solved the lag problem. They hadn't. Their work tidied up the covariance relationship, but the lag of 800 -2800 years is still there in the data. Then we were told that once warming had started, the co2 rise took over as the driver because of the high sensitivity of climate to co2 concentrations. More and more studies are showing that the climate sensitivity claimed by the modelers is too high. Spencer has shown that clouds are a negative feedback, not a positive feedback as the modelers have them parameterised. Shaviv has shown that there is a direct radiative forcing linked to solar activity which is an order of magnitude higher than previously assumed from TSI. The career climatologists who have nailed their colours to the co2 mast are in denial about these important results.
We know that you don't give backup for your claims even when asked directly, but I just ask for the record you to give references each of the claims in this paragraph of yours.


Changes in atmospheric co2 concentrations lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales. The cause and effect situation is simple and clear.
Prove it with decent scientific references instead of those misleading, carefully manipulated diagrams. This claim also is strange because you have also claimed that CO2 is feedback, and being a feedback to global temperature means being able to affect global temperature. That then means that in these feedback situations, CO2 indeed is a cause for global temperature changes, and in those situations it doesn't lag anymore even if it initially did. Both of your claims can't be correct here.


Use your common sense to cut through the sophistry and obfuscation.
Exactly.


The first 20ppm of co2 in the atmosphere accounts for around half it's effect. It's logarithmic, by the time you get to humans adding 45% of an increase of 30% in a gas which constitutes 0.039% of the atmosphere, the effect is negligible. The latest backpedalling from the career climatologists says that natural variation in the negative phases of oceanic cycles and solar forcing may stall co2 induced global warming for 30 years.
Give references for these claims, please. You are also parroting a standard denialist lie (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) here.


They have $$$billions in research funding and their reputations riding on this, and the govt wants tax money in return for their investment. What does Occam's razor tell you about the likelihood of them admitting they got it all badly wrong?
You seem to have hard time of admitting being badly wrong yourself, as shown above.


Ari I'm shocked.
That doesn't surprise me because they don't teach you these things in denialist blogs.


The Team have always told us what a 'well mixed gas' co2 is. They must have got that wrong then.
Well mixed is good approximation for long time trends, as seen in the Keeling curve, but for short time variations you need to look at the state of mixing more closely. Few papers on the subject:

- Fan et al. (1998) (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/teaching/papers_to_read/fan_etal_sci_98.pdf) discusses CO2 distribution. This paper is just to show that this is not a new issue.
- Barkley et al. (2006) (http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/mpb/06_acp_6_3517_wfmdoas.pdf) shows some satellite measurements of CO2 concentrations.
- Buchwitz et al. (2007) (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/4249/2007/acp-7-4249-2007.pdf) also shows satellite measurements of CO2 concentrations, and they also show how CO2 concentration increases with time.
- Another Barkley et al. (2006) (https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/256/1/grl_fsi_v1.pdf) paper shows the situation in North-America.
- Sabine et al. (2004) (http://www1.whoi.edu/mzweb/smpdatadocs/gruber_anthro_co2.pdf) shows CO2 concentrations in the oceans.


How good would your co2/temperature correlation look for the 1940-1975 period Ari?
Why would you think that CO2 would have been the dominant driver always? Do you not understand that there are other things affecting climate than just CO2? In that period CO2 concentration was smaller, so it was easier for other forcings to take control for a while.


Please don't insult everyone's intelligence with spurious 'data' about aerosols.
What are you referring to with this? Are you suggesting that aerosols don't affect climate?


If the co2 round Hawaii is coming from the oceans round Hawaii as they warm, how come co2 increases at a steady rate according to your linked graph while the oceans surfaces have been cooling since 2003?
I gave oceans as one possibility, I'm not claiming that it must be the real driver for those short time variations that you are emphasizing. Long time trend is from anthropogenic sources, which have continued to grow steadily. There are natural and anthropogenic sources (and sinks) for CO2, both are included in the graphs you are manipulating. Note also that you are using global sea surface temperature in your graph with local CO2 curve, so the comparison is again meaningless.

[Stroller]

What a nonsense argument. Tell me, if CO2 is capable to cause warming as a "feedback", what would prevent it from working as a "forcing"

Because it lags behind temperature at all timescales. Morover, you only have to look at graphs covering the last million years to see many occasions when the same elevated co2 reading is occuring at times when temperature is on it's way up and and equal number when temperature is on it's way down, always ahead of the co2 curve . How can co2 be acting as a forcing when it is obviously a weak feedback, easily overcome by natural variation, as we see at the moment?


I see we are bad mouthing climate models again.
We know that you don't give backup for your claims even when asked directly, but I just ask for the record you to give references each of the claims in this paragraph of yours.

Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.

Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner



Prove it with decent scientific references instead of those misleading, carefully manipulated diagrams.
What is it, apart from your own bias, which makes your woodfortrees graph "more relevant" and mine "carefully manipulated"?




What are you referring to with this? Are you suggesting that aerosols don't affect climate?
Not at all. Aerosols strongly affected older temperature readings which means the late C19th and early C20th readings are biased cold. There has been less warming than the temperature record indicates. However, the claimed large aerolsol forcing postwar is a manipulation introduced by the Team modelers to counteract their overblown co2 forcing value. You'll notice they never provide a hindcast going back further than 1940, because they can't account for 1900-1940 strong warming pre big co2 emission increase.



I gave oceans as one possibility, I'm not claiming that it must be the real driver for those short time variations that you are emphasizing. Long time trend is from anthropogenic sources, which have continued to grow steadily. There are natural and anthropogenic sources (and sinks) for CO2, both are included in the graphs you are manipulating. Note also that you are using global sea surface temperature in your graph with local CO2 curve, so the comparison is again meaningless.
As meaningless as your local co2 studies obviously. Speaking of which, where are the graphs to back up your claim that co2 leads temperature where human emissions are localised?

[nauthiz]

And here's a rather handy smackdown of Gerlich's paper:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

[Stroller]

And here's a rather handy smackdown of Gerlich's paper:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Funnily enough, another poster pointed up the same paper on wattsupwiththat.com today. An excellent summary of where Smith is in error was written by Reed Coray on this page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/#comment-99166
Rather than post a lengthy quote here, you could do an in page search for his name at that link if you are interested.

Cheers

[William]

We must understand the Sun ... prior to the next event ...
Aren't we expecting one ?
... 12ky are already gone since last event ...

If I understand the mechanisms, we are about to experience is a Heinrich event. These occur roughly at intervals of 7000 kyr.

As Gerald Bond noted there are cosmogenic isotopes changes that correlated with the Heinrich abrupt cooling. There is correlation with solar minimums, the question is specifically what happens during these special deep solar minimums, and how what happens, causes the cooling of the planet for 100 to 1000 years. (Assuming there is a special solar change and assuming the special solar change is causing the changes that are observed on the planet that correlate with a Heinrich event.)

As others have noted the solar activity in the 20th century was unusually high and high for an usually long duration. The solar mechanism (that drives the Heinrich events) appears to be strongest when the sun has been abruptly stopped from a period of long duration high sunspot activity.

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Heinrich_Peto.pdf

From a scientific and public standpoint I find it odd that people can look at this graph and not be interested from a scientific and human quality of life as to what is causing these changes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

As I noted, there is during solar minimums an increase in volcanic eruptions. Based simply on what was happened before (i.e. With no understanding of why or how.) it is expect there will be a series of very large eruptions caused by this solar minimum.

As noted in the solar thread major volcanic eruptions correlate with the solar minimums and there are less volcanic eruptions when the solar cycle is active.

The volcanic eruptions are however not capable of cooling the planet for 100 to 1000 years. As this quote from Wikipedia notes a volcanic eruption only cools the planet for a few years. When the dust and aerosols settle out of the atmosphere there is no longer a cooling effect. In fact, as there is a large increase in CO2 that occurs with the eruptions some have try to explain the interglacial warming to an increase in CO2 from eruptions.

Volcanism (From Wikipedia Glacial/Interglacial Cycle)

It is challenging to see how volcanism could cause an ice age, since its cooling effects would have to be stronger than and to outlast its warming effects. This would require dust and aerosol clouds which would stay in the upper atmosphere blocking the sun for thousands of years, which seems very unlikely. Undersea volcanoes could not produce this effect because the dust and aerosols would be absorbed by the sea before they reached the atmosphere.

Curiously, what is driving the change in CO2 levels both long term (the drop over the last 20 million years) and what is driving the CO2 level changes during the glacial/interglacial cycle CO2 levels is not understood.

http://www.clivar.org/organization/wgomd/wgomd6/pres_workshop/Toggweiler_1105.ppt

[William]

Rather strange question, considering that you already presented a claim regarding the Hansen et al. (note the spelling, not Hanson but Hansen) paper. I gave the link in my post post #535 (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451977)) along with three other papers to which you responded with your claim that Hansen et al. only found one period of correlation and ignored the other periods. Here is the link again. (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf) Why did you make the claim if you hadn't read the paper?


No. If you parrot the claims that already have been answered in that blog, I will link to it. It contains thorough responses to your claims with links to relevant papers on the subject.


Rubbish. You haven't looked at the whole situation, you only offer selected papers but you fail to mention that there are other papers presenting different results than your papers. Just briefly on some of your given papers:

Rothman (2001) (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full.pdf) (to which you linked to when you talked about Kump, 2002) finds that CO2 signal resulting from their analysis shows no "systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations". I presented newer paper by Hansen et al. (2008) and three other papers that show correlations. This should be enough to at least raise eyebrows a little.



Seager et al. (2002) (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf) claim that ocean is not principal cause for temperature differences between western Europe and eastern North America. William interpreted this so that it is an urban myth that stoppage of Atlantic drift has been cause for abrupt cooling periods in paleoclimatic record. I find that interpretation curious, as Seager et al. are not studying that at all, they are studying that: "Is the transport of heat northward by the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift, and its subsequent release into the midlatitude westerlies, the reason why Europe’s winters are so much milder than those of eastern North America and other places at the same latitude?" This is also emphasized by Wood et al. (2003) (http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/proclima/artigos_dissertacoes/artigos_ingles/globalwarmingandthemohalinecirculationstability.pd f) (see page 3 where they mention Seager et al. paper). Many other papers show evidence for the important role of Atlantic circulation for climate, Alley (2003) (http://isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=83073) for example: "In looking at the freshening of the North Atlantic, the modelled response to known forcings is sufficiently similar to observed anomaly patterns to support the contention that North Atlantic changes caused abrupt climate changes."
William: Seager specifically states in his paper that an interruption of the Atlantic drift current based on basic modeling could not have caused the abrupt cooling that is observed in the climate record. Alley and Broecker do not quantify their statement that the something stops the Atlantic Drift current and that stoppage causes the planet to cool. Stoppage of the Atlantic drift current will make the UK and Norway as cold as the west coast of North America. That is what Seager states and what Seager's model shows. Ari do you think about this problem on your own? .


What exactly you mean by "simple contradiction sprinkled with adjectives"?
William see Hansen's paper for an example of a paper that is sprinkled with adjectives without facts.


After all the papers I have linked to, and pointed out their relevant arguments, you ask this? I even answered previously to almost exact the same question by you and gave a list of relevant papers I have referred to in the past.

The discussion is here on record, I think everyone can see themselves who is doing the parroting here.

Ari,

If there is a scientific argument in Hansen's paper or any of the papers you provide a link to please copy the section of the paper that has data and logic. I provided multiple papers that have analysis and data that supports the assertion that CO2 levels in the last 1.2 Million and in the last 500 million years do not correlate with planetary temperature.

Hansen does not refute the papers that show there is no correlation of planetary temperature with CO2 level. Hansen simply assumes and states the past glacial/interglacial cycle was caused by CO2 level changes. There is no proof or logic to support that statement.

As noted in the global cooling thread the CO2 levels on the planet are being driven by something else. They are multiple periods in the last 1.2 Million years and the last 500 million years when CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature. Something external seems to causing an increase and decreasing in CO2 levels on the planet for very long term (millions of years and short term 30,000 years.)


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

This paper is a hand waving paper that tells the people of the earth what CO2 level we should strive for.



Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and icefree Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. (My comment as I provided multiple papers that shows there is not correlation of CO2 levels and planetary 17 million years ago and through out the paleo record what is Hansen's logic for making this statement?) If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

And lastly, I would like to take the high moral ground. It seem possible that the planet, based on what was happened before, is about to abruptly cool. I do not see this discussion as academic based on the glacial/interglacial cycle.

[GOURDHEAD]

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

"In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not."
If global warming is defined as an increase in "the global average temperature" and this is believed to be happening with a relatively constant output from the sun and an ever increasing CO2 content, how are oscillations about the "average global temperature" to be explained-----assuming we have ever known what the "the global average temperature" was or is.

[Ronald Brak]

My guess is that it is an artifact of measuring technique which lacks scientific rigor. It has not been convincing to me that "the gloal average" temperature has ever been determined with rigor. It is surprising to read arguments attributing global effects to El Nino, La Nina, and other regional effects. These regional effects can affect weather for months at a time in the regions where they are deterministic, but should be able to do so without affecting "the global average" temperature. The erosion effects of raised levels of dynamism of wind and water at the land sea interfaces on ice fields might be due more to dynamism than to an increase in "the global average" temperature. This beast has many more heads than the mythical hydra residing in complexity with that of the world financial system.

This might help you understand temperature measurement: Think about how you could go about determining whether or not summer was warmer than winter. Then apply the same technique, except across years this time, not just seasons.

[Stroller]

Ari, you ask for a reference for Willie Soon, here's the gig:

“The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate. In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.”

“There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic. I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.

These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.”

[William]

If global warming is defined as an increase in "the global average temperature" and this is believed to be happening with a relatively constant output from the sun and an ever increasing CO2 content, how are oscillations about the "average global temperature" to be explained-----assuming we have ever known what the "the global average temperature" was or is.

February Surface temperatures anomaly = 0.41C

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Gourdhead,
What are your thoughts concerning how the planet’s temperature has changed in the past? Is this evidence of global warming or cooling?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png


Sea ice anomaly has recovered to the 30 year average. At the coldest part of the winter currently roughly 14 million square kilometers of ocean in each hemisphere is covered by ice. When the planet cools (returns to the glacial phase) the ocean area covered with sea ice increases.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[Trakar]

I'm in Canada, it's -25c (-36 with windchill) and near middle of March. Right about now I could use a little global warming.

You've got quite a bit more than "a little global warming" right now! You seem to be confusing the desire for substantial and immediate local temperature increases with much longer scale and gradual planetary temperature rises.

[nauthiz]

Funnily enough, another poster pointed up the same paper on wattsupwiththat.com today. An excellent summary of where Smith is in error was written by Reed Coray on this page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/#comment-99166
Rather than post a lengthy quote here, you could do an in page search for his name at that link if you are interested.

That comment isn't convincing. He mentions that he thinks some energy will be lost through this mechanism, but never actually provides any math to determine how much that is. Actually, he personally indicates that he has not done the math.

It could very well be the case that Coray's comment that some heat will be lost that way is true. But Smith's paper is clear on its point that it is trying to be relatively simple, and leaves taking such effects into account to the authors of papers on more detailed climate models. Smith's omission is perfectly valid if it's a small enough effect to be something that you can safely omit for the sake of illustrating the principle. In fact, the very last paragraph of his paper pretty much says, "We didn't go into the details, talk to someone else if that's what you want." (Physicists do that all the time, such omissions were the heart and soul of the introductory physics classes I've taken. A parenthetical "Ignoring friction" does not mean "I don't understand friction." It means "Ignoring friction".) If Coray wanted to make a convincing case, then, he'd have to be speaking to one of those papers that describe circulation models. At the very least, he'd need to show that the magnitude of the effect he proposes really is great enough to invalidate what Smith is saying. Barring those, his blog comment could easily just be a very long-winded way of saying, "You forgot Poland."

A good start to arguing this would be to explain why this theoretically large component of the model is completely wrong and yet the models remain as accurate as they are. Arguing that convincingly, of course, would require constructing (or finding an example of) a model that doesn't treat CO2 as a greenhouse gas whose predictions exceed the accuracy of the mainstream ones. Or at least starting to work in that direction.

-


Which leads me to a curiosity: What is the mechanism that folks who don't believe CO2 is an anthropogenic forcing propose to explain the last 100 years of climate change? Saying "We're in an interglacial" or something like that doesn't count - correlation is not causation, let alone a substitute for models of causative mechanisms. And besides, the pro-AGW scientists have given us lots of fancy equations that we can use to spit out numbers that match what happens in nature - a task that is at the core of science. I'm starting to fear that folks who don't believe CO2 is a major anthropogenic forcing don't actually have a model of their own, let alone one that can make accurate predictions. If that suspicion turns out to be correct, then I'll have a very hard time being convinced that this particular issue isn't just another pseudoscience.

[flynjack1]

Just a speculation, but if vulcanism were to cause a severe enough cooling to cause significant snows at lower latitudes the earths albedo would increase perhaps enough to exerbate the cooling trend. Recorded human history has not seen this, but is there evidence to support such a notion in the ice records?

[GOURDHEAD]

Gourdhead, What are your thoughts concerning how the planet’s temperature has changed in the past? Is this evidence of global warming or cooling? I don't believe the data, because I have not read nor heard how rigorously the "global average temperature" has been either defined or determined. I assert that it cannot be measured, but must be computed from values measured all over the earth with sufficient simultaniety and smallness of cell size to support the determination of its value in a credible manner. The equating of the accuracies of values "obtained" in the late 1800's with those taken in the late 20th century seems absurd. If scientists who consider accuracies to be equivalent over such a period of time are to be taken seriously, they need a very rigorous argument.


This might help you understand temperature measurement: Think about how you could go about determining whether or not summer was warmer than winter. Then apply the same technique, except across years this time, not just seasons. I have labored under the impression that I fully understand how to measure temperature here and there in the sea and the air. My problem is understanding those who assert that they know or believe the "the average global temperature" has EVER been determined and why they believe it to be so and why we should get excited about predictions of either global warming or cooling at catastrophic levels. My guess is that "the global average temperature" is rising and that human produced CO2 is a contributor---but it's only a guess. I maintain that a glaciation will tax our abilities more than moderate warming.

[Stroller]

A good start to arguing this would be to explain why this theoretically large component of the model is completely wrong and yet the models remain as accurate as they are.

Important components of the models used by the IPCC are incorrectly parameterized and this is evidenced by the fact that they are not accurate at all. If you believe they are accurate, point me to the output of a model which has correctly predicted climate changes. They have consistently overestimated warming or have such wide error ranges as to make them useless.



Which leads me to a curiosity: What is the mechanism that folks who don't believe CO2 is an anthropogenic forcing propose to explain the last 100 years of climate change?

There hasn't been any climate change in the last hundred years which couldn't be the result of natural variation. The late C20th warming is not unprecedented, despite the shrill claims of the scaremongers. The northwest passage was navigated in 1939, and the Viking huts in the Greenland permafrost show it was warmer in the medieval period. We are still coming ou of the little ice age which reached it's nadir in the late 1600's. In Central england, the temperature rose 6f in 45 years between 1690 and 1730. This makes the approx 2f rise over the last 100 years seem relatively gentle. These facts are not controversial.

There are several longer term climate cycles at work ranging from the 100,000 year interglacial cycle through approx 200 year cycles to the around 60 year oceanic cycle. These combine in various ways to produce natural changes in temperature which can be quite sudden or quite sustained. It would appear several of the cycles peaked in the recent past and we may now be on a downtrend. The oceans have been cooling since 2003, the lower tropospheric temperature has been falling on the average since 2005, and antarctic sea ice extent was at a record high since measurements started in 1979 two years ago. These facts are also uncontroversial.

The summer meltback of arctic ice was less last year than the year before, and this winter has been severe in high latitudes which means we can expect to see more recovery in summer arctic ice extent this year.

I suggest you enjoy what warmth there is left in the 30 year phase of increasing temps while you can, because the indications are that they are going to carry on falling for quite a while.

[nauthiz]

Important components of the models used by the IPCC are incorrectly parameterized and this is evidenced by the fact that they are not accurate at all. If you believe they are accurate, point me to the output of a model which has correctly predicted climate changes. They have consistently overestimated warming or have such wide error ranges as to make them useless.
You can find plenty in the IPCC report. The models are sanity-checked by running them against historical data and seeing if the predictions based on that data match what really happened. Predicting out into the future is guaranteed to be much more inaccurate, because all they can do is feed plausible scenarios for what the parameters will be in the future into the models. After time has passed and they can find out what the parameters actually were, they have more data for sanity checking. If the models' inaccuracy turns out to be because the estimates weren't accurate, then that inaccuracy is not evidence against the validity of the models. It's just more evidence against the validity of the Psychic Friends' Network.

It's also not evidence against the usefulness of the models for the kinds of forecasts they're being used to make. As long as a model continues to prove to be an accurate enough representation of the portions of the climate they're designed to model, then it's perfectly valid to use it for what the forecasts are meant to do: Saying "If X happens, then Y the likely consequence. If, on the other hand, U happens, V is the likely consequence."



There hasn't been any climate change in the last hundred years which couldn't be the result of natural variation. The late C20th warming is not unprecedented, despite the shrill claims of the scaremongers. The northwest passage was navigated in 1939, and the Viking huts in the Greenland permafrost show it was warmer in the medieval period. We are still coming ou of the little ice age which reached it's nadir in the late 1600's. In Central england, the temperature rose 6f in 45 years between 1690 and 1730. This makes the approx 2f rise over the last 100 years seem relatively gentle. These facts are not controversial.

There are several longer term climate cycles at work ranging from the 100,000 year interglacial cycle through approx 200 year cycles to the around 60 year oceanic cycle. These combine in various ways to produce natural changes in temperature which can be quite sudden or quite sustained. It would appear several of the cycles peaked in the recent past and we may now be on a downtrend. The oceans have been cooling since 2003, the lower tropospheric temperature has been falling on the average since 2005, and antarctic sea ice extent was at a record high since measurements started in 1979 two years ago. These facts are also uncontroversial.

The summer meltback of arctic ice was less last year than the year before, and this winter has been severe in high latitudes which means we can expect to see more recovery in summer arctic ice extent this year.

I suggest you enjoy what warmth there is left in the 30 year phase of increasing temps while you can, because the indications are that they are going to carry on falling for quite a while.

I suspect that maybe you didn't read what comes after the part of my post that you quoted. (Or the quote itself - I asked for a theoretical background, not a list of things that have happened in the past.) Here's the next sentence again: "Saying "We're in an interglacial" or something like that doesn't count - correlation is not causation, let alone a substitute for models of causative mechanisms."

[Ronald Brak]

I have labored under the impression that I fully understand how to measure temperature here and there in the sea and the air. My problem is understanding those who assert that they know or believe the "the average global temperature" has EVER been determined and why they believe it to be so and why we should get excited about predictions of either global warming or cooling at catastrophic levels. My guess is that "the global average temperature" is rising and that human produced CO2 is a contributor---but it's only a guess. I maintain that a glaciation will tax our abilities more than moderate warming.

I take it you don't understand how the global average temperatures are measured. Do you understand how you could determine if the average yearly temperature was different from the year before where you live?

[Ari Jokimaki]

Because it lags behind temperature at all timescales.
Wrong answer. First, you haven't demonstrated this, especially the "all timescales" part should be interesting to prove. But I doubt you will even try. Second, in the same paragraph as the part I'm quoting, you say that CO2 is a "weak feedback" (without reference, of course). How can something cause warming (being a weak feedback means that) but lags temperature "at all timescales"? Remember that a feedback causes warming so it cannot lag temperature.


How can co2 be acting as a forcing when it is obviously a weak feedback, easily overcome by natural variation, as we see at the moment?
Ok, so you don't understand what a feedback is.

It has been said (see for example Hansen et al., 2008, to which I have given link previously), that in past climate changes CO2 has acted as a feedback to temperature. What is meant by this is that there has been first some agent that has caused initial warming, and this initial warming has then caused rising CO2 concentrations (due to warming oceans for example). The elevated CO2 concentaration has caused more warming amplifying the initial warming. Now, even if the changes in CO2 concentration have lagged the initial warming, changes in CO2 concentration precede the amplified part of the warming. This is very difficult to show from the diagrams, and this is of course where Stroller bases his/her efforts to confuse the issue. However, the ridiculous claim that CO2 lags temperature at all timescales while also acting as feedback (which is a clear contradiction) blows Stroller's cover in this issue.


Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.

Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...ural-response/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v3.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Where are your references for these claims of yours:

Occams razor works better on logical issues than sociological issues.

The Climate careerists had decided that co2 causes temperature change before the ice core data proved they had cause and effect back to front.

Ever since the ice core data came out, we have had handwaving arguments presented to try to wriggle around the issue.
Etc. And, what is the point of not offering all the references at one go? Why is it generally so hard to get any information out of you in addition to your original claims? In an honest scientific discussion people usually readily offer references. You still haven't given the references which I have been asking for long time (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1450647). Also, you ignored once again most of my questions from my last post.


What is it, apart from your own bias, which makes your woodfortrees graph "more relevant" and mine "carefully manipulated"?
I said that my graph which showed longer term trends was more relevant to this discussion than your graph which showed only short term variations. However, both my graph and your graphs are largely irrelevant when global climate is discussed. Especially irrelevant are your conclusions about these graphs which you have continued even when it has been pointed out that you are comparing local and global graphs. I see that you continue to use bias accusations as an argumentation tactic.


Aerosols strongly affected older temperature readings which means the late C19th and early C20th readings are biased cold. There has been less warming than the temperature record indicates.
Aerosols strongly affected temperature readings means that temperature readings include cooling effect caused by aerosols, it does not mean that temperature record would be biased. Just look at Lean & Rind (2008) (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf), this effect of aerosols is known by climate science. Or, is this yet one more thing you are going to claim is ignored by models? You claim that aerosols affected older measurements, but when we look at Lean & Rind figure 2d, we see that aerosol effect has been getting stronger to the 1990's and then starts to settle but doesn't get much weaker, so aerosols affected newer measurements more, not older measurements. We have witnessed yet another false claim which you have presented as a fact. Why you keep posting false things as facts?


However, the claimed large aerolsol forcing postwar is a manipulation introduced by the Team modelers to counteract their overblown co2 forcing value. You'll notice they never provide a hindcast going back further than 1940, because they can't account for 1900-1940 strong warming pre big co2 emission increase.
Well, to me it seems that in this case, you tried to manipulate the truth. You'll also notice from Lean & Rind that their analysis extends back to 1890 and Hansen et al. (2008) (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf) analysis extends back over 60 million years.


As meaningless as your local co2 studies obviously.
Local CO2 studies can be very meaningful. Comparing local things to global things is not very meaningful, and doing it without thinking any further is absolutely meaningless.


Speaking of which, where are the graphs to back up your claim that co2 leads temperature where human emissions are localised?
I don't think I have made such a claim. I have said that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause for current climate change, but I haven't claimed that it should be visible in places with strong human emissions. The whole effect is, at least I think so, borderline impossible to graph so that it would show that CO2 leads because the effect is so slow that the place where it can be determined which curve is leading gets lost in the noise. However, I can show one example graph that shows CO2 in the lead. Attached is a graph showing CO2 concentrations and temperature from Hawaii. The graph is made of monthly Mauna Loa C02 data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html) which has been roughly detrended (I subtracted linear trend from raw data), and of monthly temperature data from Hilo (Hawaii) measurement station (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425912850000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1). Both are offset to fit to same graph window. None of these actions change the timing of variations in the datasets, but due to detrending and offsetting, the Y-axis scale doesn't give much meaningful information. I show one decade so that interannual variations are easier to see. One can see there clearly that CO2 leads.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Gerlich has been discussed here before (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/80189-greenhouse-effect-even-relevant-global-warming.html). I think that stuff belongs to ATM-forum.

[Stroller]

You can find plenty in the IPCC report. The models are sanity-checked by running them against historical data and seeing if the predictions based on that data match what really happened. Predicting out into the future is guaranteed to be much more inaccurate, because all they can do is feed plausible scenarios for what the parameters will be in the future into the models. After time has passed and they can find out what the parameters actually were, they have more data for sanity checking. If the models' inaccuracy turns out to be because the estimates weren't accurate, then that inaccuracy is not evidence against the validity of the models. It's just more evidence against the validity of the Psychic Friends' Network.

It's also not evidence against the usefulness of the models for the kinds of forecasts they're being used to make. As long as a model continues to prove to be an accurate enough representation of the portions of the climate they're designed to model, then it's perfectly valid to use it for what the forecasts are meant to do: Saying "If X happens, then Y the likely consequence. If, on the other hand, U happens, V is the likely consequence."




I suspect that maybe you didn't read what comes after the part of my post that you quoted. (Or the quote itself - I asked for a theoretical background, not a list of things that have happened in the past.) Here's the next sentence again: "Saying "We're in an interglacial" or something like that doesn't count - correlation is not causation, let alone a substitute for models of causative mechanisms."

Giventhe dismal failure of the models so far, the study of past cycles is the best we have to go on as things stand. So far the results from that are proving more accurate. We are not talking about 'portions of the climate' we are talking about the overall trend of global temperature. To have a model extrapolate a 0.17f/decade trend of 100 years into a 8f rise over the next 90 years is frankly laughable. Where is the evidence that co2 is such a strong forcing?

I did read all your post, but whereas the modelers want to convince us that they have it nailed and know the score with climate, I am more cautious, and sceptical. The modelers have clouds as a positive feedback. They are wrong. Read Spencer's work I linked for you and try to understand the powerful evidence he presents. Honest climate scientists admit they still wouldn't be able to accurately predict future trends in the climate even if they had computers 1000 times more powerful that now.

[Stroller]

Gerlich has been discussed here before (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/80189-greenhouse-effect-even-relevant-global-warming.html). I think that stuff belongs to ATM-forum.

Can't win with you Ari, even when I refer to articles published in mainstream journals you want to describe them as ATM.

With regards to your other long post, I'll answer some more of your questions when you have answered a couple of mine, fair's fair.

Where is your evidence for the claim that co2 leads temperature in locales where more human co2 is emitted?

[nauthiz]

Giventhe dismal failure of the models so far, the study of past cycles is the best we have to go on as things stand.
What dismal failure? When I asked you for further info on the only specific example you've given so far, you clammed up.


I did read all your post, but whereas the modelers want to convince us that they have it nailed and know the score with climate, I am more cautious, and sceptical.
Frankly, I've been developing a strong suspicion that you aren't really reading the sources you link, either. You certainly don't seem to be reading them critically - most the time when I ask you very obvious questions about those sources, I get no answer or a rewording of the original statement (including the recent example of several paragraphs that were exactly what I told you would not suffice as a satisfactory answer). That's not skepticism, that's an extreme case of confirmation bias.

Anyway, the modelers say they're getting a pretty good (not perfect, but pretty good) grasp of what's going on based on theories that have been repeatedly tested for predictive power. You seem to think you have a better grasp of what's going on based on eyeball guesstimates.

That doesn't impress me. Show me an analysis that proves that the reason a model was wrong is because the underlying theory is inaccurate. I need to see this because countless times in the past, climate change skeptics I've seen have proven to be unable to grasp the critical difference between hypotheticals and reality. That makes me harder to convince. I want to know that these examples of failure you're thinking of come from comparing reality to reality, not hypotheticals to reality.

[nauthiz]

Can't win with you Ari, even when I refer to articles published in mainstream journals you want to describe them as ATM.

:eh: arXiv is hardly a mainstream journal.

It's a totally automated system, and pretty much any registered user can submit anything they want to it. If you give me some time to get a buddy of mine with an account drunk enough to agree to do it for me, I shouldn't have too much trouble getting a paper detailing my proposed mechanism for how Tyrannosaurus Rex was able to generate the laser beams it shoots from its fingertips onto arXiv.

[GOURDHEAD]

I take it you don't understand how the global average temperatures are measured. Do you understand how you could determine if the average yearly temperature was different from the year before where you live?The Earth is much too large in both volume and thermal capacity to allow for measurement of its temperature in the strict sense of measure. I do understand that it could be computed from many temperature measurements and have suggested how it should be done. I am convinced it has never been done at the level of thoroughness that I have suggested, although NASA now has satellites in orbit to do a better job than has been done before.

Again I know how the temperature in my local area (volume) could be measured and that it might be significant (depending on the definition of local) for weather but not for climate.

[Stroller]

What dismal failure? When I asked you for further info on the only specific example you've given so far, you clammed up.


Frankly, I've been developing a strong suspicion that you aren't really reading the sources you link, either. You certainly don't seem to be reading them critically - most the time when I ask you very obvious questions about those sources, I get no answer or a rewording of the original statement (including the recent example of several paragraphs that were exactly what I told you would not suffice as a satisfactory answer). That's not skepticism, that's an extreme case of confirmation bias.

Anyway, the modelers say they're getting a pretty good (not perfect, but pretty good) grasp of what's going on based on theories that have been repeatedly tested for predictive power. You seem to think you have a better grasp of what's going on based on eyeball guesstimates.

That doesn't impress me. Show me an analysis that proves that the reason a model was wrong is because the underlying theory is inaccurate. I need to see this because countless times in the past, climate change skeptics I've seen have proven to be unable to grasp the critical difference between hypotheticals and reality. That makes me harder to convince. I want to know that these examples of failure you're thinking of come from comparing reality to reality, not hypotheticals to reality.

Hi Nauthiz,
Here's the GISS model E hindcast.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9043/modelehindcastoz1.png

Not very impressive is it?

Here's the Hindcast using Hadley measured oceanic cycles and a less wildly overestimated co2 forcing

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8/newhadcrut3model.png

Much closer, but will diverge strongly from reality over time if natural variation turns out to be a bigger factor than the modelers currently believe.

Here's the IPCC co2 parameterisation applied from 1880 in green. As you can see, it diverges wildly from observations. The less OTT co2 forcing in blue

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5721/newhadcrut3warming.png

Perhaps in return you could post links to model outputs which support your view that they are accurate? Then we can better determine who has the better grasp on "differences between hypotheticals and reality".

[Stroller]

I shouldn't have too much trouble getting a paper detailing my proposed mechanism for how Tyrannosaurus Rex was able to generate the laser beams it shoots from its fingertips onto arXiv.

Go for it. Michael Crichton would have been impressed. :)

[nauthiz]

Hi Nauthiz,
Here's the GISS model E hindcast.
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9043/modelehindcastoz1.png

Not very impressive is it?

Does it fall outside the advertised accuracy? Is the inaccuracy great enough to invalidate the idea of AGW?

It looks pretty par for the course to me:

See this analysis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/), which includes a graph that provides some context for the one you linked (and should illustrate the existence of error bars isn't quite the groundbreaking news you seem to think it is). Here's the article's comment on the graph I'm talking about:

It should be clear from the above the plot that the long term trend (the global warming signal) is robust, but it is equally obvious that the short term behaviour of any individual realisation is not. This is the impact of the uncorrelated stochastic variability (weather!) in the models that is associated with interannual and interdecadal modes in the models - these can be associated with tropical Pacific variability or fluctuations in the ocean circulation for instance. Different models have different magnitudes of this variability that spans what can be inferred from the observations and in a more sophisticated analysis you would want to adjust for that.

Their analysis is based on aggregating results from a large number of models that were used by the IPCC. You can get a copy of that data here (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php).

This FAQ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/) on climate modeling might also be illustrative.

Incidentally, it includes a pretty good assessment of the analysis technique you're trying to use:

# How do I write a paper that proves that models are wrong?

Much more simply than you might think since, of course, all models are indeed wrong (though some are useful - George Box). Showing a mismatch between the real world and the observational data is made much easier if you recall the signal-to-noise issue we mentioned above. As you go to smaller spatial and shorter temporal scales the amount of internal variability increases markedly and so the number of diagnostics which will be different to the expected values from the models will increase (in both directions of course). So pick a variable, restrict your analysis to a small part of the planet, and calculate some statistic over a short period of time and you're done. If the models match through some fluke, make the space smaller, and use a shorter time period and eventually they won't. Even if models get much better than they are now, this will always work - call it the RealClimate theory of persistence. Now, appropriate statistics can be used to see whether these mismatches are significant and not just the result of chance or cherry-picking, but a surprising number of papers don't bother to check such things correctly. Getting people outside the, shall we say, more 'excitable' parts of the blogosphere to pay any attention is, unfortunately, a lot harder.


The next place to go for looking into the assessment and validation of models is, of course, chapter 8 of the IPCC WG1 AR4: Climate Models and their Evaluation (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf) (pdf link) On page 600 you can see the IPCC's version of the graph I mentioned on the RealClimate page.

[mugaliens]

The second coldest I've seen was outside the pilot's swing window while cruising at 43,000 feet over the northern tip of Greenland. It was -73 deg F (-58 C).

Of course, it was summer time, too...

The coldest around -120 deg F (-84 C), same location (outside the pilot's window), but high over northern Canada in late January.

[Ronald Brak]

Again I know how the temperature in my local area (volume) could be measured and that it might be significant (depending on the definition of local) for weather but not for climate.

So do you understand how to to determine if temperature is increasing or decreasing locally over a period of years?

[GOURDHEAD]

So do you understand how to to determine if temperature is increasing or decreasing locally over a period of years? Yep.

[Ronald Brak]

Yep.

So if the average local temperature changed over a number of decades, would you accept that the local climate had changed?

[Stroller]

Does it fall outside the advertised accuracy? Is the inaccuracy great enough to invalidate the idea of AGW?

It looks pretty par for the course to me:

See this analysis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/), which includes a graph that provides some context for the one you linked (and should illustrate the existence of error bars isn't quite the groundbreaking news you seem to think it is). Here's the article's comment on the graph I'm talking about:


Their analysis is based on aggregating results from a large number of models that were used by the IPCC. You can get a copy of that data here (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php).

This FAQ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/) on climate modeling might also be illustrative.

Incidentally, it includes a pretty good assessment of the analysis technique you're trying to use:



The next place to go for looking into the assessment and validation of models is, of course, chapter 8 of the IPCC WG1 AR4: Climate Models and their Evaluation (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf) (pdf link) On page 600 you can see the IPCC's version of the graph I mentioned on the RealClimate page.

Hi Nauthiz,
thanks for the link to the spaghetti graph on realclimate, I've seen it many times, and it always makes me smile. It's a pity you didn't get past the first link in my post, and see how much more accurate the graph built from oceanic cycles is, perhaps then we could have had a more informative and wider ranging discussion.

The third graph I posted a link to shows how the claimed climate sensitivity for Co2 takes the models so far from reality, but again, you don't seem to be interested in discussing this. Understandable, but frustrating.

Thanks for the chat anyway.

Cheers

[Ari Jokimaki]

If there is a scientific argument in Hansen's paper or any of the papers you provide a link to please copy the section of the paper that has data and logic.
I already did, in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1452477). It was right after you had made your claim that Hansen et al. "found a period where there was correlation and ignored the periods when there was not", and you also continued by saying: "That is not science". Later we found out that you hadn't even read the paper when you made that claim. We also found out that Hansen et al. didn't ignore any periods like you claimed. Now, I already asked this but you ignored the question, so again: Why did you make the claim if you hadn't read the paper?


I provided multiple papers that have analysis and data that supports the assertion that CO2 levels in the last 1.2 Million and in the last 500 million years do not correlate with planetary temperature.
I provided multiple papers too, but as we saw from your previous sentence, you haven't shown any interest in them. On the other hand, I discussed some of the papers you offered in my last post, but you didn't bother to comment anything to that, and I even presented you questions there.


Hansen does not refute the papers that show there is no correlation of planetary temperature with CO2 level. Hansen simply assumes and states the past glacial/interglacial cycle was caused by CO2 level changes.
So, first you asked me to point relevant parts of Hansen et al. paper, but now you make yet another claim about that paper. Your claim here is false. I explained what Hansen et al. did in above mentioned post. They analyse the situation from paleoclimatic data, and find that CO2 was a substantial forcing factor during past climate changes. Hansen et al. do assume certain forcing properties for CO2 because we can't measure them for the past climate changes anymore. But when you think about it, all they really assume is that same basic physics that applies today, applied in the past.


They are multiple periods in the last 1.2 Million years and the last 500 million years when CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature.
I already tried to ask you a question relating to this claim you're parroting. Do you think that if there is a single event where CO2 and temperature don't correlate, then does that mean that CO2 cannot ever correlate with temperature? Do you think that there can only be one factor affecting climate?


This paper is a hand waving paper that tells the people of the earth what CO2 level we should strive for.
[followed by a quote from Hansen et al. abstract]

So, you didn't read past the abstract then? They perform an analysis to the situation like I have already explained. I invite everyone to look at Hansen et al. figure 1C that shows temperature measurements from Vostok ice core. Other curve there is calculated from greenhouse gas concentrations from that core and from their known forcing properties. Result is an excellent match temporally. This is something you don't achieve without correlation.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Ari, you ask for a reference for Willie Soon, here's the gig:
No, I didn't. You are once again twisting the facts. I said this:


Where is the research publication of this experiment? Why don't you answer the questions made by nauthiz on this?

Anyone can see above that my questions (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1453575) were specifically about some Salt Lake City "experiment", not generally anything about Willie Soon. Things quoted by Stroller (once again given without reference) in this last post were once again about local issues, not global.


Important components of the models used by the IPCC are incorrectly parameterized and this is evidenced by the fact that they are not accurate at all. If you believe they are accurate, point me to the output of a model which has correctly predicted climate changes. They have consistently overestimated warming or have such wide error ranges as to make them useless.
Ahh, the resident model "expert"... Tell me, do you still think that oscillations are ignored by models? Why should we take your word for these claimed features of models when it has been demonstrated that you don't have slightest idea about the details of the models (while still continuing to make rubbish claims about them)?

[Stroller]

Ari, You prefer to try to win the argument by attempting to rubbish the opponent rather than by presenting evidence for your own beliefs. This style makes you an unpleasant person to debate with, so I won't bother.

You're failure to present any evidence for co2 leading temperature in locales where human influence is great (or in fact anywhere on earth) speaks volumes.

[Ivan Viehoff]

If I understand the mechanisms, we are about to experience is a Heinrich event.
Well if you do, perhaps you are in the wrong job, because the professionals seem to have problems with it.

"As with so many climate related issues, the system is far too complex to be confidently assigned to a single cause. There are several possible drivers..." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event)

I find that the sign of true wisdom is a clear understanding of precisely what it is that we do not properly understand. That was certainly true of Einstein.

[nauthiz]

Hi Nauthiz,
thanks for the link to the spaghetti graph on realclimate, I've seen it many times, and it always makes me smile. It's a pity you didn't get past the first link in my post, and see how much more accurate the graph built from oceanic cycles is, perhaps then we could have had a more informative and wider ranging discussion.

The third graph I posted a link to shows how the claimed climate sensitivity for Co2 takes the models so far from reality, but again, you don't seem to be interested in discussing this. Understandable, but frustrating.

I looked at the other two graphs, even if I did abbreviate the quote. I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at with the second graph - what is there about it you wanted to discuss that wasn't addressed by my comments?

As for the third graph, I find it impossible to interpret that graph because I don't have a good enough idea of what the data represents. What is its source? How were those lines generated? Who generated those predictions?

As I mentioned to you before, I think your habit of hotlinking graphs without providing any information about what they are or where they come from isn't particularly productive.


Now, did you have any substantive response whatsoever to my comments, or are you just trying to throw up a smokescreen?

[nauthiz]

Ari, You prefer to try to win the argument by attempting to rubbish the opponent rather than by presenting evidence for your own beliefs.

:think: Now that you mention it, that's not at all unlike your method, Stroller.

(Glass houses and stones.)

[Trakar]

Just a speculation, but if vulcanism were to cause a severe enough cooling to cause significant snows at lower latitudes the earths albedo would increase perhaps enough to exerbate the cooling trend. Recorded human history has not seen this, but is there evidence to support such a notion in the ice records?

Possible, but with the degree of requisite vulcanism, it is more likely that there would be more immediate concerns than a temporary reversal, and as CO2 levels are still rapid and accelerating in their increase, it would definitely be a temporary respite at best.

[captain swoop]

Heldervelez your post is unsuitable for this forum, it contains both ATM ideas which should be in their own forum and religion which doesn't belong on BAUT at all. Iam moving the post to an Admin area while I take advice on action

[William]

Well if you do, perhaps you are in the wrong job, because the professionals seem to have problems with it.

"As with so many climate related issues, the system is far too complex to be confidently assigned to a single cause. There are several possible drivers..." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event)

I find that the sign of true wisdom is a clear understanding of precisely what it is that we do not properly understand. That was certainly true of Einstein.

Ivan,

This is a very interesting problem. What is driving the glacial/interglacial cycle? Why causes CO2 levels on the planet to increase and decrease during the glacial cycle and long term during epoches? (i.e. Why did CO2 levels on the planet fall as the planet cooled over millions of years? Why are CO2 levels currently the lowest in the paleo record?)

Perhaps one approach to solving this problem would be to list the concurrent anomalies and look at basic physics as to what could possibly cause what is being observed.

For example why would there be an increase in volcanic activity during solar minimums? Why did the glacial/interglacial cycle changed from a 41 kyr to 100 kyr period. Why are CO2 getting lower and lower during the glacial phases? C3 type planets are starting to die due to insufficient CO2 during the glacial phase.


Comment:
The author of this power point shows based on analysis of data, planetary CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature and planetary temperature as shown in the paper by Wensch (see other thread) data shows planetary temperature does not correlate with orbital changes. (i.e. Insolation changes do not drive the glacial/interglacial cycle.)

The unsuppport conclusion of this author that internal earth mechanisms drives CO2 levels I believe if I understand the mechanism is not correct. CO2 is being driven by an external factor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Origin of the 100,000-yr Glacial-Interglacial CO2 Cycle
http://www.clivar.org/organization/wgomd/wgomd6/pres_workshop/Toggweiler_1105.ppt


The 100,000-yr cycle in atmospheric CO2 is an internally generated cycle that is independent of the 100,000-yr cycle in orbital eccentricity.

Short-term climate excursions of unknown origin bring the pCO2 back to the threshold. They are the real drivers of the 100,000-yr ice age cycles. Successful excursions are spaced out by the chemistry crisis. Only those that occur after the chemistry crisis has run its course can bring the pCO2 back to the threshold.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Very interesting and I thank you for that reference. I find it curious how you draw any conclusions merely from reading that and without the ability to run their model on scenarios you have in mind. I think all the author is saying is that pCO2 can get disturbed (for reasons unknown) and then a servo mechanism accelerates the change before an equilibration mechanism catches it and brings it back. And this has little to do with orbital factors or the sun (disappointing for your pet theories about the sun), rather it is geochemical/climatic mechanism, allowing the climate goes off on little excursions for its own private reasons. Very interesting, but it doesn't say very much about the next 100 years.

Well it isn't news that CO2 is precipitated out of the ocean as limestone on the bottom, gets subducted and returns via volcanoes over a timescale measured in millions, or at least 100,000s, of years. We all knew that, I think. But it isn't going to explain very much about the next 100 years. That is usually the mechanism which is posited to explain how we escaped from snowball earth.

Here is an interesting and related question that I posed in another thread, and which I have not had an adequate explanation for. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Le Chatelier's principle tells us that chemical equilibrium reactions move to remove the source of the change. So given that the ocean is precipitating limestone on the bottom, one would presume by that principle that an increase in CO2 input at the top, ie higher pCO2 in the atmosphere, would result in an increase of limestone precipitation at the bottom. But we are told the opposite, namely that more CO2 in at the top, in present conditions, will result in less precipitating out at the bottom. Ocean acidification promotes less precipitation.

But plainly that statement cannot be true for all levels of pCO2. It must have been false at a lower acidity. If there were no CO2 in at the top, there would be no precipitation at the bottom. So from that zero situation, as pCO2 increased, we arrived at a situation that there was precipitation. So there must have been a range of lower acidities at which the increase in pCO2 increased precipitation, as Le Chatelier tells us. But if an increase in CO2 in at the top now results in a reduction of precipitation, there must have been a turning point, an ideal, lower, pCO2 which resulted in a maximum level. How very curious. Can you explain why there is a turning point? And how different is it from the present pCO2?

[Stroller]

A very good question Ivan. Especially curious, as we are near a 500 million year low in atmospheric co2 levels.

[GOURDHEAD]

So if the average local temperature changed over a number of decades, would you accept that the local climate had changed?Not necessarily. Yes if the definition of local is compatible with that of weather and my restraints on determining the "average temperature" are honored. Remember I believe "the global average temperature " can be determined; I don't believe it has been.

[William]

Very interesting and I thank you for that reference. I find it curious how you draw any conclusions merely from reading that and without the ability to run their model on scenarios you have in mind. I think all the author is saying is that pCO2 can get disturbed (for reasons unknown) and then a servo mechanism accelerates the change before an equilibration mechanism catches it and brings it back. And this has little to do with orbital factors or the sun (disappointing for your pet theories about the sun), rather it is geochemical/climatic mechanism, allowing the climate goes off on little excursions for its own private reasons. Very interesting, but it doesn't say very much about the next 100 years.

Well it isn't news that CO2 is precipitated out of the ocean as limestone on the bottom, gets subducted and returns via volcanoes over a timescale measured in millions, or at least 100,000s, of years. We all knew that, I think. But it isn't going to explain very much about the next 100 years. That is usually the mechanism which is posited to explain how we escaped from snowball earth.

Here is an interesting and related question that I posed in another thread, and which I have not had an adequate explanation for. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Le Chatelier's principle tells us that chemical equilibrium reactions move to remove the source of the change. So given that the ocean is precipitating limestone on the bottom, one would presume by that principle that an increase in CO2 input at the top, ie higher pCO2 in the atmosphere, would result in an increase of limestone precipitation at the bottom. But we are told the opposite, namely that more CO2 in at the top, in present conditions, will result in less precipitating out at the bottom. Ocean acidification promotes less precipitation.

But plainly that statement cannot be true for all levels of pCO2. It must have been false at a lower acidity. If there were no CO2 in at the top, there would be no precipitation at the bottom. So from that zero situation, as pCO2 increased, we arrived at a situation that there was precipitation. So there must have been a range of lower acidities at which the increase in pCO2 increased precipitation, as Le Chatelier tells us. But if an increase in CO2 in at the top now results in a reduction of precipitation, there must have been a turning point, an ideal, lower, pCO2 which resulted in a maximum level. How very curious. Can you explain why there is a turning point? And how different is it from the present pCO2?

There are a couple of interesting and perhaps connected CO2 equilibrium and equilibrium change questions here.

I have another paper on CO2 level changes during the glacial/interglacial phase that I will re-read that paper, and get back to you if I have any ideas.

This is the author of the power point's hypothesis:

http://www.clivar.org/organization/wgomd/wgomd6/pres_workshop/Toggweiler_1105.ppt



The Earth’s climate system contains a threshold that is capable of pushing the atmospheric pCO2 away from its long-term mean.

Crossing the threshold brings on a crisis in ocean chemistry that holds the pCO2 above or below the long-term mean for 40-50,000 years.

Short-term climate excursions, like those that lead to Heinrich Events, bring the system back to the threshold.

[Ronald Brak]

Not necessarily. Yes if the definition of local is compatible with that of weather and my restraints on determining the "average temperature" are honored. Remember I believe "the global average temperature " can be determined; I don't believe it has been.

Okay, let's define local as your backyard. I don't know what you mean by restraints on determining average temperature. I don't see what would restrain you from determining it.

So if you had been measureing the temperature in your back yard for 20 years and found that the average temperature for the past ten years was one degree higher than the average temperature for first ten years of measurement, then would you accept that the average temperature of your back yard was one degree warmer in the second decade compared to the first decade?

[Jens]

Ivan,
C3 type planets are starting to die due to insufficient CO2 during the glacial phase.


I don't usually point of typos, but this one is really important, because it threw me completely off track. I was wondering, "what on earth is a C3 type planet, and how do planets die off"? :) That should be "c3 type plants". . .

[Ari Jokimaki]

Can't win with you Ari, even when I refer to articles published in mainstream journals you want to describe them as ATM.
It was an ATM-thread that I linked to, and that ATM-thread was about the same paper you offered.

"Published in mainstream journals" doesn't mean that subject cannot be ATM. There are ATM subjects that have hundreds of papers in mainstream journals (discordant redshift issue and QSSC for example).


With regards to your other long post, I'll answer some more of your questions when you have answered a couple of mine, fair's fair.
Oh, now we are pretending that it is me who is not answering questions. Well, I'm sure everyone can see that this is just a turtle defence from your part.


Where is your evidence for the claim that co2 leads temperature in locales where more human co2 is emitted?
I already answered this question (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-19.html#post1454496).


Ari, You prefer to try to win the argument by attempting to rubbish the opponent rather than by presenting evidence for your own beliefs.
I have presented loads of papers in this thread, and you haven't commented practically any of them. You, on the other hand, have presented loads of claims without giving references to them, and practically all of them that I have checked have turned out to be false. Yet, you have presented them as facts. Why do you keep presenting false things as facts?


This style makes you an unpleasant person to debate with, so I won't bother.
Turtles all the way down.


You're failure to present any evidence for co2 leading temperature in locales where human influence is great (or in fact anywhere on earth) speaks volumes.
I think it is very obvious to everyone that this is just a yet another debating tactic from you.

However, and curiously enough, just yesterday I presented a grap showing clear case of CO2 leading temperature... your statement here also speaks volumes in that light.

Let us also remember that I have presented many papers that conclude CO2 (or greenhouse gases in general) to be the cause for recent global warming. That is a clear indication of CO2 leading temperature (it cannot be the cause without leading the temperature).

[Torsten]

What is the point of William's comment in any case? As I understand it, a major shift in the composition of C4 vs C3 plants in ecosystems happened millions of years ago when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 declined to levels that really disadvantaged the C3 species compared to the more recently evolved C4 species. Apparently this was particularly true in arid regions. For the ~650,000 years prior to the industrial era, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is known to have varied between about 180 ppm and 300 ppm (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif). The various plant communities across the globe must be adapted to the conditions in that range if they persist today (recognizing that relative abundances probably also shift in cycles with changing conditions). With CO2 at ~280 ppm immediately prior to industrialization, and higher today, what is the concern about C3 plants?

Also, when comments are made on this board about CO2 concentrations 500 million years ago, as if it is somehow relevant to today, do the people making those remarks understand that there were no land plants evolved at that point? Vascular plants didn't show up until, what, 50 million years later? Deep rooted vegetation is thought to have greatly hastened the uptake of CO2 by weathering.

[William]

Le Chatelier's principle tells us that chemical equilibrium reactions move to remove the source of the change. So given that the ocean is precipitating limestone on the bottom, one would presume by that principle that an increase in CO2 input at the top, ie higher pCO2 in the atmosphere, would result in an increase of limestone precipitation at the bottom. But we are told the opposite, namely that more CO2 in at the top, in present conditions, will result in less precipitating out at the bottom. Ocean acidification promotes less precipitation.

But plainly that statement cannot be true for all levels of pCO2. It must have been false at a lower acidity. If there were no CO2 in at the top, there would be no precipitation at the bottom. So from that zero situation, as pCO2 increased, we arrived at a situation that there was precipitation. So there must have been a range of lower acidities at which the increase in pCO2 increased precipitation, as Le Chatelier tells us. But if an increase in CO2 in at the top now results in a reduction of precipitation, there must have been a turning point, an ideal, lower, pCO2 which resulted in a maximum level. How very curious. Can you explain why there is a turning point? And how different is it from the present pCO2?

Ivan,
Your first comment makes sense to me. Higher CO2 levels should result in high levels of precipitation. Where is stated that they do not?

I was looking through the papers I have on CO2 level changes. They do not deal with that subject.

This paper discusses the ocean temperature and CO2 levels.

http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/lea/pdfs/Martin%202005%20Paleo.pdf

Role of deep sea temperature in the carbon cycle during the last glacial

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/JournalClub/edmond.2003.c_subduct.pdf


Non-steady state carbonate recycling and implications for the evolution of atmospheric PCO2

This quote is in support to the comment concerning C3 plants suffering from CO2 stress. C3 plants response to produce more stomata which causes them to lose water. Higher Co2 levels reduces desertification and accelerates plant growth.

CO2 levels are currently very, very low. The discussion concerning levels CO2 is void of any deep thought concerning the biosphere and biosphere optimization.


In the contemporary Earth surface environment, CO2 is close to being a limiting nutrient for terrestrial vegetation, especially C3 plants (trees, shrubs, etc.). Strongly enhanced growth is observed in greenhouse experiments with artificially increased PCO2 [7], and greatly reduced growth results at PCO2 9150 ppmV (c.f. preindustrial interglacial value is 280 ppmV). C4 plants, mainly grasses, are much more resilient to both low PCO2 (limit V20 ppmV) and low PH2O. Between 8 and 5 Ma, a drastic change in the relative preponderance of C3 and C4 plants occurred in response to decreasing PCO2 [8].

The rest of this paper concerns a possible explanation as to why CO2 levels dropped. It also discusses the mechanisms which control PCO2.



Most treatments of the Phanerozoic evolution of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere (PCO2 ) assume a steady state closed system. Release of CO2 by mantle degassing and by biogenic precipitation of carbonates and their metamorphism in subduction zones balances the consumption by continental aluminosilicate weathering. Small perturbations in this balance bring about changes in PCO2 , but given the small size of the atmospheric CO2 reservoir relative to the rate of fixation by weathering, mechanisms that maintain this apparently precarious balance dominate current thinking. At present, the Atlantic and Indian oceans are major depo centers of CaCO3, but subduction of ocean floor and the deposits on it is minimal in these basins. The locus of metamorphic regeneration of CO2 is restricted to the trenches off Central America. This is due to global asymmetries in the age of crust being subducted, in the distribution of oceanic carbonate productivity, and in the carbonate compensation depth, coupled with the poor preservation of old carbonate sediments. There is no causal relationship between the metamorphic release and weathering uptake of CO2 and subsequent deposition of carbonate on timescales shorter than a complete cycle of opening and closure of a basin. We hypothesize that the low present-day PCO2 is maintained by a time lag between: (1) mantle outgassing and metamorphic regeneration related to orogenic events in the geologic past, and (2) consumption driven by recent mountain building in the Tethyan zone and in the Western Americas. If this is true, then at the present ‘kinetic minimum’ both the terrestrial biosphere and the weathering rates are CO2 limited. Atmospheric PCO2 levels are controlled by weathering reactions only at this limit. In epochs of tectonic stability, outgassed CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere to very high concentrations with no obvious limit. Thus, as in the past, the current ice age will persist for tens of millions of years, possibly until the closure of the Atlantic recycles the first deep carbonate depocenter since the destruction of the Tethys. A greater understanding of all these processes is required for the geochemical evolution of the Earth surface environment to be simulated.

[Stroller]

William, you are probably aware of it, but a recent paper found trees have been lapping up the extra co2 available in the atmosphere and putting on girth and weight at an enhanced rate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/19/forests-carbon-emissions
http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/ebi/people/simon-lewis-publications.htm

Of course, different viewpoints put a different spin on the importance of the result. Simon Lewis himself is a precautionary principle climate thinker. To my thinking, it shows co2 is at a low level historically, and the biosphere would be very happy to have a higher atmospheric concentration of this important plant food gas.

I wonder about the correctness of estimates of the historical range of co2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years. The Sahara was a fertile and humid place 6,000 years ago, supporting hippos, giraffe and other large fauna.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Ivan,
Your first comment makes sense to me. Higher CO2 levels should result in high levels of precipitation. Where is stated that they do not?
Just look for anything on "ocean acidification". This will do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
As you see, it says,

"Under normal conditions, calcite and aragonite are stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution. Research has already found that corals,[14][15][16] coccolithophore algae,[17][18][19][20] coralline algae,[21] foraminifera,[22] shellfish[23] and pteropods[2] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2. The Royal Society of London published a comprehensive overview of ocean acidification, and its potential consequences, in June 2005.[9]"

"However, some studies have found different response to ocean acidification, with coccolithophore calcification and photosynthesis both increasing under elevated atmospheric pCO2,[24][25][26] an equal decline in primary production and calcification in response to elevated CO2[27] or the direction of the response varying between species.[28] Recent work examining a sediment core from the North Atlantic found that while the species composition of coccolithophorids has remained unchanged for the industrial period 1780 to 2004, the calcification of coccoliths has increased by up to 40% during the same time.[26]"

As usual, as clear as mud. But the general message being, pumped out to the masses, which seems to be the balance of opinion, is that ocean won't transfer all the CO2 in the atmosphere to solid form on the ocean floor, because ocean acidification militates against it. In fact, worse, the amount being precipitated will reduce. The fact that the precipitation process occurs with biological mediation just adds to the confusion, but shouldn't alter the essential thermodynamics. As I stated above, there is something fishy going on here, which I should like to understand better.

[Torsten]

William, you had written:
Why are CO2 getting lower and lower during the glacial phases? C3 type planets are starting to die due to insufficient CO2 during the glacial phase.

The minimum level of CO2 over the last 800,000 years (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html) was ~170 ppm, ~670,000 years ago. Subsequent minima were slightly higher (assuming the sampling is reasonably close to identifying the extremes).

At 385 ppm, CO2 levels are currently ~37% higher than they were at the start of industrialization. The highest level in the last 800,000 years was ~305 ppm. Relative to millions of years ago, CO2 levels are low. Relative to the era in which our species emerged, they are high.

Did I misunderstand that you think CO2 stress is a current problem for the continuing existence of C3 plants?

[William]

William, you had written:

The minimum level of CO2 over the last 800,000 years (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html) was ~170 ppm, ~670,000 years ago. Subsequent minima were slightly higher (assuming the sampling is reasonably close to identifying the extremes).

At 385 ppm, CO2 levels are currently ~37% higher than they were at the start of industrialization. The highest level in the last 800,000 years was ~305 ppm. Relative to millions of years ago, CO2 levels are low. Relative to the era in which our species emerged, they are high.

Did I misunderstand that you think CO2 stress is a current problem for the continuing existence of C3 plants?

Hi Torsten,

No, you did not misunderstand me.

C3 plants continue to benefit from increased CO2 up until the level of CO2 reaches around 2 to 3 times 280 ppm. With higher levels of CO2 C3 plants can produce less stomata. With less stomata there is less water loss. The plant can hence survive with less water when CO2 levels are higher. In addition to surviving with less water plants grow significantly faster with more CO2.

From a plant's standpoint CO2 is food.

As I said, from a biosphere protection standpoint a warmer planet with more CO2 is optimum.

The number one issue for biosphere preservation is habitat preservation which has little to do with CO2 levels.

[Klausnh]

More evidence of CO2's affect on temperature:

The drilling found that when atmospheric CO2 reached 400 parts per million (ppm) - around 4 million years ago - it exaggerated a 40,000-year cycle of warming and cooling caused by tilts in the Earth's axis. That was enough to melt the Ross ice shelf and create the conditions to melt the entire West Antarctic ice sheet.
source (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562595)

[Torsten]

C3 plants continue to benefit from increased CO2 up until the level of CO2 reaches around 2 to 3 times 280 ppm. With higher levels of CO2 C3 plants can produce less stomata. With less stomata there is less water loss. The plant can hence survive with less water when CO2 levels are higher. In addition to surviving with less water plants grow significantly faster with more CO2.

Yes, I understand all this and am familiar with some of the research into productivity under differing pCO2 regimes. But none of what you've written is support for your assertion that CO2 levels presently challenge the continued existence of C3 plants. This topic is a red herring.


From a plant's standpoint CO2 is food.

No, not really. It is an absolutely necessary nutrient, but the plant does not derive its energy from it. So the comparison to food is misleading.


As I said, from a biosphere protection standpoint a warmer planet with more CO2 is optimum.

Phanerozoic Biodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png)
Too bad such a chart is not available for terrestrial genera, but compiling and understanding the data for such an effort would be even more difficult.



The number one issue for biosphere preservation is habitat preservation which has little to do with CO2 levels.

The biosphere will continue to exist for a long time, despite externalities and the activities of humans. I think the issues are about the kind of alterations we make and whether their effects improve or reduce our condition.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Those who think that more CO2 is good, should take a look what Kiehl & Shields (2005) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf) say about greatest mass extinction event (the Permian-Triassic extinction event that happened 251 million years ago) in history:


We present results from a comprehensive climate system model that indicate that elevated levels of CO2 during the latest Permian led to climatic conditions inhospitable to both marine and terrestrial life.
So, it is possible that this massive extinction event was caused by elevated CO2 concentration (although other causes have also been suggested).

About plants and biosphere, here is an interesting writing (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html) about that. It links to Thomas et al. (2004) (http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/20040108nature.pdf) who estimate that by 2050, 18-35 % of plant and animal species will be committed to extinction due to global warming. Also, this review article by Parmesan (2006) (http://cns.utexas.edu/communications/File/AnnRev_CCimpacts2006.pdf) is interesting. One important aspect to consider is how the whole ecosystems are affected instead of concentrating on plants alone (which of course serves the purposes of climate sceptics). Parmesan mentions an issue that has already been observed:


Predator-prey and plant-insect interactions have been disrupted when interacting species have responded differently to warming.
I wonder if it is really good for plants when plant-insect interactions disrupt. These claims of plants-eat-CO2-so-more-of-it-must-be-good seem rather naive from this point of view.

One should also consider generally if global warming is good or not (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm).

[Stroller]

Let us also remember that I have presented many papers that conclude CO2 (or greenhouse gases in general) to be the cause for recent global warming. That is a clear indication of CO2 leading temperature (it cannot be the cause without leading the temperature).

Lol!

So now contentious articles in journals which exclude opposing data analyses are sufficient to overturn actual observation and the law of cause and effect. :)

I've saved your comment to my hard drive Ari, it's a classic.



However, I can show one example graph that shows CO2 in the lead. Attached is a graph showing CO2 concentrations and temperature from Hawaii. The graph is made of monthly Mauna Loa C02 data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html) which has been roughly detrended (I subtracted linear trend from raw data), and of monthly temperature data from Hilo (Hawaii) measurement station (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425912850000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1). Both are offset to fit to same graph window. None of these actions change the timing of variations in the datasets, but due to detrending and offsetting, the Y-axis scale doesn't give much meaningful information. I show one decade so that interannual variations are easier to see. One can see there clearly that CO2 leads.
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/science-technology/9784d1237204452-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-hawaii_1978_1988.gif

Oh dear, I didn't want to have to do this.
It doesn't show anything of the sort Ari. In your graph, co2 isn't leading temperature by 5 months, it's lagging it by 7 months, as this plot clearly demonstrates.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979.08/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000

Give it up, co2 lags temperature at all timescales, as I keep trying to tell you. Now, please lay off with the personal insults, you are making a chump of yourself.


More evidence of CO2's affect on temperature:

source (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562595)

"The Andrill team is still studying the cores to check just how warm the sea was when the ice sheet melted. Modelling suggests it could be about 5C"

And the sea temperature round the coast of antarctica nowadays with the co2 level at 387ppm is.....

A balmy 0 to 3C averaged over the year (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/tutorials/images/SouthOcean_JanDec03_SGzoom2_sst.jpg).

Next!

[William]

Yes, I understand all this and am familiar with some of the research into productivity under differing pCO2 regimes. But none of what you've written is support for your assertion that CO2 levels presently challenge the continued existence of C3 plants. This topic is a red herring.

No, not really. It is an absolutely necessary nutrient, but the plant does not derive its energy from it. So the comparison to food is misleading.


Phanerozoic Biodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png)
Too bad such a chart is not available for terrestrial genera, but compiling and understanding the data for such an effort would be even more difficult.


The biosphere will continue to exist for a long time, despite externalities and the activities of humans. I think the issues are about the kind of alterations we make and whether their effects improve or reduce our condition.

Torsten,

Try to think for your self rather than parroting. Same for Ari. Ari's link to the Permian-Triassic extinction event has nothing to do with current CO2 levels. CO2 levels during the Permian-Triassic were 12 times current CO2 levels.

We need to discuss CO2 equilibration mechanisms This CO2 public campaign is void of scientific truthfulness. There are equilibrium mechanisms that work to smooth and cap CO2 increases.

Ari or Tornsten, could you perhaps speak to this specific subject rather than bringing in a laundry list of other issues that have nothing to do with this discussion.

Desertification is a significant environmental problem. Higher levels of CO2 makes both C3 and C4 plants more productive and more efficient with their use of water.

This is a basic biological fact. Why has it not been discussed?

Those how care about the environment have selected the incorrect side of the argument. Increasing CO2 is one of the few things humans are doing to help the biosphere.


Desertification P.Sinha

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2Qq9cEz0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=c3+levels+and+desertification&source=bl&ots=eh6xQtzx8K&sig=8pa1agZ_7QU0N9alyDGcCo-2QQk&hl=en&ei=YYjDSeqVIIm4sAOTjKiSBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result


…C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2. At current levels of CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and returned to the air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with photosynthesis in sunlight.

Elevated levels of atmospheric C02 virtually eliminate photo-respiration in C3 plants. Higher levels of CO2 also sharply reduce …



C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthesis in response to a higher carbon dioxide level…

…the largest benefit for C4 plants received from high CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by about 30 per cent in C4 with a doubling of CO2 concentration from the current atmosphere.

[Ivan Viehoff]

There are equilibrium mechanisms that work to smooth and cap CO2 increases.
But, as the fascinating paper you yourself quoted, and apparently sought to rely on, there are also mechanisms that may initially amplify a change, and take the climate off in an unpleasant little excursion for some tens of thousands of years, before the equilibration kicks back in.

No one is in any doubt that if we stop emitting CO2 in present industrial quantities it will get rained out, etc. But timescales of several thousands of years are quoted to achieve just that. The worrying thing is if the changes from the short term CO2 increase itself promotes other natural GHG emission events (eg, release of CH4 from permafrost bogs, etc), thus promoting precisely one of those excursions, so that the timescale to return to status quo becomes much longer.

[Torsten]

Torsten,

Try to think for your self rather than parroting.

That's funny William. Let me recap this, if I may: You brought up C3 vs C4 plants, and made the claim that the C3's continuing existence is at risk. I asked you for clarification of that, and you confirmed that this was your opinion. I pointed out that the big change in proportions of C3 vs C4 plants occured millions of years ago when the CO2 declined to a level that gave the C4 plants a much better advantage. I pointed out that CO2 levels have been cycling between 170 and 305 ppm for at least the last 800,000 years and that today's flora are the survivors of whatever selection forces were subjected on them in that time.

You repeated your concern about desertification and how hard it is for C3 plants to survive under those conditions, or that the C3's water consumption leads to desertification. (Tell it to someone who lives in a rain forest and see how far you get.)

So, my challenging your assertion about the risk to C3 plants by showing you some common information and a line of reasoning that shows it is an idea without merit, is parroting?


We need to discuss CO2 equilibration mechanisms This CO2 public campaign is void of scientific truthfulness. There are equilibrium mechanisms that work to smooth and cap CO2 increases.

Whatever mechanisms exist have not worked to prevent the build up of atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to the present 385 ppm in a period of ~250 years. 55% of the CO2 that humanity has emitted in the last century remains in the atmosphere. The pH of oceans has fallen. Looking at the last 800,000 years of CO2 history, this rate of increase is unprecedented. Smooth and cap? On geologic timescale, yes. On a scale that matters to people? Dream on.

My concern is not with an amount of CO2 that is twice as high as ever achieved in the last 800,000 years, but with the speed at which it gets there. I don't want to confuse you with a parroted laundry list of the reasons why such a rate of change may not be good for humans, I'm sure you'd ignore it in any case.


Ari or Tornsten, could you perhaps speak to this specific subject rather than bringing in a laundry list of other issues that have nothing to do with this discussion.

This is rich. Your correct understanding that a particular metabolic pathway of CO2 fixation is beneficial to some species somehow leads you to dream up an unsupported idea that extinction of those species without the pathway is imminent. You bring this idea to this board, and my addressing this idea with examples that contradict it is bringing up a laundry list of unrelated issues?


Desertification is a significant environmental problem. Higher levels of CO2 makes both C3 and C4 plants more productive and more efficient with their use of water.

This is a basic biological fact. Why has it not been discussed?

Because rapidly increasing levels of CO2 have a potential list of other effects that may be more pressing?


Those how care about the environment have selected the incorrect side of the argument. Increasing CO2 is one of the few things humans are doing to help the biosphere.

This is your opinion, and nothing more.

[Klausnh]

Lol!
"The Andrill team is still studying the cores to check just how warm the sea was when the ice sheet melted. Modelling suggests it could be about 5C"

And the sea temperature round the coast of antarctica nowadays with the co2 level at 387ppm is.....

A balmy 0 to 3C averaged over the year (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/tutorials/images/SouthOcean_JanDec03_SGzoom2_sst.jpg).

Next!And your point is???

[Gillianren]

You repeated your concern about desertification and how hard it is for C3 plants to survive under those conditions, or that the C3's water consumption leads to desertification. (Tell it to someone who lives in a rain forest and see how far you get.)

As it happens, I live in a rain forest, or near enough to one. (I'm not sure what the boundaries of the actual forest are, just the national park.) I'll admit that I don't understand Wikipedia's explanation of exactly what a C3 plant is, but if it's what we have here, I hazard it does not universally cause desertification. If it does, I can't imagine what it used to look like in the heart of the forest.

[nauthiz]

Now, please lay off with the personal insults, you are making a chump of yourself.

I need this printed on a T-shirt or a beer cozy or something.

[Stroller]

And your point is???
1) I'm not expecting the temperature to rise 2C with another 13ppm rise in co2
2) I'm not expecting the imminent collapse of the west antarctic coastal ice sheets while the surrounding sea temp hovers around zero over the year and the ground temp averages around -40C.

Steig et al have tortured a slight positive trend in temperature from 1950 out of somewhat fancifully interpreted and fabricated data. So how much ice do you see melting in antarctica if the temperature goes up from -40C to -39.6C over the next 20 years Klaus?

Please could you explain how the study you linked is
"More evidence of CO2's affect(sic) on temperature:"

No-one on the study seems to want to put their name to that assertion in the article you linked. In fact, they blame the machinery:

"The drilling found that when atmospheric CO2 reached 400 parts per million (ppm) - around 4 million years ago - it exaggerated a 40,000-year cycle of warming and cooling caused by tilts in the Earth's axis. That was enough to melt the Ross ice shelf and create the conditions to melt the entire West Antarctic ice sheet."

Where's the beef?

[Stroller]

I need this printed on a T-shirt or a beer cozy or something.

Do whatever you like with it, as long as you attribute correctly. Perhaps a mirror would be a good item for it. ;)

I was thinking of getting some T-shirts printed up with a graph of co2 lagging behind temperature on the front.
Just need a slogan for the top and quote as a strapline below.
Maybe something like this:

--------------------------

Co2 causes global warming?

Graph

"it cannot be the cause
without leading the temperature"
- Ari Jokimaki -
---------------------------

[nauthiz]

I'm not really wanting a T-shirt with a global warming related slogan. I just love the irony of a statement of the structure "Stop insulting people! Now I'm going to insult you!"

[Stroller]

It's the law of claws and reflex at work, naturally. ;)

[Torsten]

I believe I may have misunderstood William. Looking at his posts again I realize that he is concerned about the consequences to C3 plants of desertification when CO2 levels are low rather than suggesting that C3 plants further it.

[off topic]
I grew up 875 km up the coast from where you are, in a town that gets 2200 - 2700 mm of precipitation a year, depending on what part of town you're in. (Yes, 500 mm/year difference in the space of a few km and an elevation difference of 120 m.) I spent four years of my life working in forests where the annual evapotranspiration potential is less than the precipitation received. Yeah, I'm familiar with temperate rain forest. :)
[/off topic]

[William]

Desertification currently occurs because CO2 is very, very, low. 280 ppm is low not high. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher than 280 ppm for the entire period life has been on the planet except for the interglacials when it drops to 180 ppm.

Plants respond to increased CO2 levels (doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm) by growing roughly 2 twice as quickly (C3 type plants) and by using water more efficiently (C3 and C4 plants.)

A doubling of CO2 levels from 560 ppm will result in a significantly more productive biosphere with less desertification.

More and faster growing vegetation means more food for animals to eat. Think of the size of dinosaurs. The size of the largest animals in an ecosystem is directly proportional to amount of plant food available for the herbivores.

[William]

But, as the fascinating paper you yourself quoted, and apparently sought to rely on, there are also mechanisms that may initially amplify a change, and take the climate off in an unpleasant little excursion for some tens of thousands of years, before the equilibration kicks back in.

No one is in any doubt that if we stop emitting CO2 in present industrial quantities it will get rained out, etc. But timescales of several thousands of years are quoted to achieve just that. The worrying thing is if the changes from the short term CO2 increase itself promotes other natural GHG emission events (eg, release of CH4 from permafrost bogs, etc), thus promoting precisely one of those excursions, so that the timescale to return to status quo becomes much longer.

Hi Ivan,

I found a copy of the paper that explains the CO2 cycle and CO2 burial mechanisms (what removes CO2 from the atmosphere/biosphere.) This is a good paper I would recommend it.

This paper shows the relative magnitude of CO2 in the surface ocean, deep ocean, and the biosphere. As the paper notes the deep ocean has 25 times more CO2 than the surface ocean and the biosphere combined.

The deep ocean acidity is not increasing. CO2 will precipitate out of the deep ocean at a higher rate if CO2 levels increase in the water that moves back down to the deep ocean.

As this paper notes, there is no mechanism to explain why CO2 levels drop from 280 ppm to 180 ppm in during the glacial period. The deep ocean cannot cool sufficiently to explain the drop. (The deep ocean is currently only a few degrees Celsius above freezing and therefore cannot cool sufficiently to quantitatively explain the drop.

When the planet is in the glacial phase vast regions of the ocean and the continents are covered in ice which reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed by the ocean. Also during the glacial phase there is less plant life on the planets surface and ocean's surface so the amount of CO2 absorbed by the living biosphere is reduced.

The paper quantifies this amounts and shows almost all of the CO2 drop must be explained by a different mechanism that cooling of the oceans.

Glacial/interglacial variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide by Daniel M. Sigman & Edward A. Boyle


The exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the surface ocean would reach completion over the course of six to twelve months if there were no other processes redistributing inorganic carbon in the ocean. However, the pCO2 of surface waters is continuously being reset by its interaction with the deep ocean reservoir of inorganic carbon, which is more than 25 times that of the atmosphere and surface ocean combined (Fig. 2).


There are uncertainties in each of these effects, but it seems that most of the 80±100 p.p.m.v. CO2 change across the last glacial/interglacial transition must be explained by other processes. (My comment than by temperature variance which forces CO2 in or out of solution in the ocean.) We must move on to the more complex aspects of the ocean carbon cycle. (my comment: To try to explain what could cause CO2 levels to drop 100 ppm during the glacial period.)


http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/sigman/paperpdfs/Sigman00Nature.pdf

[William]

This quote from the same paper explains my point that the deep ocean resists changes in alkalinity. Also when CO2 increases in the atmosphere rain water acidity increases which will results in more weathering of surface rocks which increase will increase the amount of CaC03 that moves in to the ocean.

As noted in this paper the CaCO3 is supersaturated in the ocean and hence precipitates out removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If there is no new source of CO2 moving into the atmosphere CO2 levels will rapidly drop in a few million years and all CO2 based plant life will die and as most animals require CO2 based plants, most animal life will also die.

CO2 is absolutely required for life to exist. It is not a pollutant.

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/sigman/paperpdfs/Sigman00Nature.pdf


The balance between the input of alkalinity from the continents and the removal of alkalinity in sediments is maintained by the distribution of CaCO3 burial in the deep sea, and this distribution also provides us with a powerful constraint on ocean alkalinity changes over glacial/interglacial cycles. Deep sea CaCO3 burial is mediated by the depth of the `calcite lysocline,' the transition separating shallower sea floor sediments where some calcite is preserved from deeper sea floor sediments where almost all of the calcite rain dissolves25,26. One of the primary controls on the depth of the lysocline is the calcite saturation depth, the depth at which the carbonate ion concentration of bottom water, [CO2-3 ]bw, equals the carbonate ion concentration at calcite saturation, [CO2-3 ]sat, occurring on average at 3.5 km depth27. Because calcite solubility increases with depth (a pressure effect), the water bathing the sea floor above the saturation depth is supersaturated, causing the preservation and eventual burial of CaCO3 on the shallow sea floor, while water deeper than the saturation depth is undersaturated, dissolving the calcite rain and thus preventing CaCO3 burial on the deeper sea floor.

[Ari Jokimaki]

So now contentious articles in journals which exclude opposing data analyses are sufficient to overturn actual observation and the law of cause and effect.
Actually, as noted and shown before, most of the papers I have mentioned have been about observations. Also, practically every time I have mentioned some actual research articles, you have been very quiet about them, so your vague handwaving effort here is worthless.

I also see that you are trying to ridicule me. That is a much used tactic among GW-deniers when there's someone threatening their worldview. It's nice to see actually, it tells me that I have done my work here well.


Oh dear, I didn't want to have to do this.
It doesn't show anything of the sort Ari. In your graph, co2 isn't leading temperature by 5 months, it's lagging it by 7 months, as this plot clearly demonstrates.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...fset:1/to:2000
Yet another effort to bend the truth from you. Once again you are trying to compare local CO2 concentrations to global (sea surface) temperatures. I gave a comparison of local CO2 concentration to temperature of roughly the same location. Temperature clearly lags CO2 concentration in that comparison.


Give it up, co2 lags temperature at all timescales, as I keep trying to tell you.
We have seen what your tellings have been worth here, you have offered mostly false things claimed as facts. Try to back up your claims with real science for a change (that will of course be hard to do because real science goes against your claims).


Now, please lay off with the personal insults, you are making a chump of yourself.
Is it a personal insult if you are shown to try to pass false information as facts, and do so continuously? On the other hand, you have been making bias and dishonesty accusations to those who disagree with you for a long time now (you just did that again to Steig), so I have to wonder if you really should do this whining.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Ari's link to the Permian-Triassic extinction event has nothing to do with current CO2 levels. CO2 levels during the Permian-Triassic were 12 times current CO2 levels.
It's an example of CO2 being able to cause a mass extinction. It serves as a contrast to your statements about rising CO2 level being nothing but a good thing. I also mentioned other things more relevant to current levels of CO2, even examples of harm already caused to the biosphere, but for some reason you ignored those.


Ari or Tornsten, could you perhaps speak to this specific subject rather than bringing in a laundry list of other issues that have nothing to do with this discussion.
Curiously enough, I thought that this discussion was supposed to be about following planetary temperature trends.


Desertification is a significant environmental problem. Higher levels of CO2 makes both C3 and C4 plants more productive and more efficient with their use of water.

This is a basic biological fact. Why has it not been discussed?
I searched for scientific papers including word "desertification". Result was about 100,000 hits.

Then I searched for scientific papers including words "desertification", "c3", and "c4". Result was about 900 hits.

Why you think it hasn't been discussed?

[Stroller]

your vague handwaving effort here is worthless.
That is a much used tactic among GW-deniers

Yet another effort to bend the truth from you. Once again you are trying to compare local CO2 concentrations to global (sea surface) temperatures. I gave a comparison of local CO2 concentration to temperature of roughly the same location. Temperature clearly lags CO2 concentration in that comparison.


We have seen what your tellings have been worth here, you have offered mostly false things claimed as facts. I have to wonder if you really should do this whining.

Do you think the wind never blows and there are no ocean currents round Hawaii Ari? Do you think the co2 around Hawaii magically leads temperature by 3-5 months while it lags it by 7-9 globally? Well obviously you do, or you wouldn't risk making such a big noise about it.

Here's your graph again:

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/science-technology/9784d1237204452-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-hawaii_1978_1988.gif

So, how does this graph you produced tell you that co2 leads temperature by 3-5 months rather than lag it by 7-9 months like it does worldwide?

It shows the opposite. Look at the minimum temperatures, and the way the minimum points in the co2 curve mimic them the following year rather than preceding them. The detrending doesn't matter because these are relative differences we are looking at (Though if you had done it more accurately, the point would be even clearer). Even your own data is trying to tell you that you have got it wrong.

[nauthiz]

OK, fine, let's all agree for the sake of argument that the scientific community really does have it all wrong about one of the most studied molecular compounds in all of Creation, and you, armed with just a few pictures and no apparent knowledge of the actual theoretical background behind them, have proven them wrong.

We'll have to throw their description of how CO2 works, then. Which leads to the question: How does CO2 really work? And if it works so dramatically differently, why hasn't this shown up in the form of models that depend on our idea of how CO2 works being dramatically wrong?

And you kind of immediately disappeared from that discussion about accuracy of climate models as soon as it got tough for you, I know, but I do feel the need to take us back there for this reason: I still have to wonder - if our idea of how CO2 works is so wrong, then why are the models still able to show that level of long-term stability?

[William]

Arctic Sea Ice Expedition and Conditions in Arctic

The Catlin arctic expedition whose goal was ostensibly to measure the thickness of the Arctic ice sea have been on the sea ice for 19 days.

Little progress. Their gear is failing due to the extreme cold, -40C with strong winds.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/18/catlin-arctic-survey-poles

Check the picture out that shows a section of the ice surface which makes travel difficult.

Great region for tourists!


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/slideshow/ALeqM5ibE96fzrHyP7DbAzc8nroygOttXg?index=0


Each day we aim to work our way north, inch by inch, trying to push as far north as possible. At the end of a 10 hour sledging day we put up the tent and have our supper but the cold is all consuming and refuses to go away. I lie in my sleeping bag and close my eyes but it's so bitterly cold that I'm always half-awake, shivering. All I can think of is that while I'm lying here we're constantly drifting southwards. All that effort, day-in, day-out, but when we stop to rest we're being carried back the way we've come and it's completely beyond our control. It's soul destroying....Some nights the desire to head north is so strong I want to get out of my sleeping bag, strap on my skis and get going!



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2009/mar/13/catlin-arctic-survey


Arctic Sea Ice approaches 20 year average.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.19.2009.gif

[William]

OK, fine, let's all agree for the sake of argument that the scientific community really does have it all wrong about one of the most studied molecular compounds in all of Creation, and you, armed with just a few pictures and no apparent knowledge of the actual theoretical background behind them, have proven them wrong.

We'll have to throw their description of how CO2 works, then. Which leads to the question: How does CO2 really work? And if it works so dramatically differently, why hasn't this shown up in the form of models that depend on our idea of how CO2 works being dramatically wrong?

And you kind of immediately disappeared from that discussion about accuracy of climate models as soon as it got tough for you, I know, but I do feel the need to take us back there for this reason: I still have to wonder - if our idea of how CO2 works is so wrong, then why are the models still able to show that level of long-term stability?

nauthiz,

The models are incorrect in terms of CO2 saturation and the planet's response to a change in forcing. From a scientific standpoint there is no explanation as to what is causing the glacial/interglacial cycle and the abrupt cooling and warming events in the cycle.

It is not possible to construct a model if a key massive forcing function is not known. The modeler attempts to curve fit the model to match the data. If the model is sufficiently complicate it is possible to curve fit however the model has no scientific value.


http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Broecker%201999%20GSA%20Today.pdf

From Wally Broecker's Climate is an Angry Beast Article


“Models to the Rescue?”

“…No one understands what is required to cool Greenland by 16C and the tropics by 4 +/-1C, to lower the mountain snowlines by 900m, to create an ice sheet covering much of North America, to reduce…CO2 by 30%, or to raise the dust rain… by an order of magnitude. If these changes were not documented in the climate record, they would never have entered the minds of the climate dynamics community.

Models that purportedly simulate glacial climates do so only because key boundary conditions are prescribed (the size and elevation of ice sheets, sea ice extent, sea surface temperature, CO2 content, etc)”

This is what we are trying to explain. People, scientists included, just do not believe the planet can abruptly cool. That is however what the data shows. There is no scientific explanation for this graph.

Global warming is being pushed, by welling meaning people, as an indirect method of environmental protection. As I have stated, the science indicates, that a doubling of CO2 will result in almost of a 50% increase in C3 plant growth rate and a 30% decrease in water required for both C3 and C4 plants. CO2 is necessary for plant life and as all life is linked necessary for animals. Increased CO2 is good for the biosphere.

From a planetary temperature standpoint, the planet is dangerously cold. As this graph indicates climate is stable when the planet is warm and becomes unstable as the planet cools. A warmer planet is good for the entire biosphere.

Unfortunately an increase in CO2 at these levels does not result in a significantly warmer planet. Douglass et al's finding that the tropical troposphere has not warmed provides direct support for that statement. The GCM show the tropical troposphere should warm. It does not which shows something is fundamentally incorrect with the models.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png


Milankovitch's hypothesis is the urban myth of paleo-climatology.


Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change by Carl Wunsch

A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are reexamined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size andnear-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods. At the least, the stochastic background ‘‘noise’’ is likely to be of importance.

[nauthiz]

The models are incorrect in terms of CO2 saturation and the planet's response to a change in forcing. From a scientific standpoint there is no explanation as to what is causing the glacial/interglacial cycle and the abrupt cooling and warming events in the cycle.

It is not possible to construct a model if a key massive forcing function is not known. The modeler attempts to curve fit the model to match the data. If the model is sufficiently complicate it is possible to curve fit however the model has no scientific value.

From a scientific standpoint there is no firm explanation as to why Venus is rotating backwards.

Therefore, something in f=ma, p=mv, f=G( (m1m2)/d2), and all the rest of that collection must be wrong. Sure, despite not knowing all the key variables we can come up with scenarios that give rise to Venus's current rotation. But that's not valid, it's just curve fitting. And sure, the theory makes workable predictions in the present, but that model is not valid. It is not possible to construct a workable model because a key massive forcing in the solar system's mechanics is not known.

Basic physics is wrong.

[HenrikOlsen]

Do you think the wind never blows and there are no ocean currents round Hawaii Ari? Do you think the co2 around Hawaii magically leads temperature by 3-5 months while it lags it by 7-9 globally? Well obviously you do, or you wouldn't risk making such a big noise about it.
That seasonal changes in temperature leads to variations in CO2 concentrations and that those concentrations lags behind the temperature changes because they are forced by them is nothing new, is not controversial and is irrelevant to the discussion of whether an increase in the average CO2 is forcing an increase in global average temperature.
Why are you tilting at that straw man?

[William]

From a scientific standpoint there is no firm explanation as to why Venus is rotating backwards.

Therefore, something in f=ma, p=mv, f=G( (m1m2)/d2), and all the rest of that collection must be wrong. Sure, despite not knowing all the key variables we can come up with scenarios that give rise to Venus's current rotation. But that's not valid, it's just curve fitting. And sure, the theory makes workable predictions in the present, but that model is not valid. It is not possible to construct a workable model because a key massive forcing in the solar system's mechanics is not known.

Basic physics is wrong.

nauthiz,

I do not understand what Venus’s orbital direction has to do with explaining this cyclic event. A single event changed Venus’s orbital direction.

There is based on this graph obviously a large cyclic forcing function that affects the planet’s climate. When something happens repeatedly in the past, it seems logical and high likely to expect that it will happen again.

There is a physical explanation as to why climate is changing as per this graph.

What do you think? Is that a rational statement?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

In my last comment, I provided a link to Carl Wunsch paper (published 2004) where he analyzes the paleoclimatic data to show Milankovitch’s orbital hypothesis is the urban legend of paleoclimatic science. The above graph is not caused by insolation orbital changes.


The so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, that much of inferred past climate change is a response to nearperiodic variations in the earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun, has attracteda great deal of attention. Numerous textbooks (e.g., Bradley, 1999; Wilson et al., 2000; Ruddiman, 2001) of varying levels and sophistication all tell the reader that the insolation changes are a major element controlling climate on time scales beyondabout 10,000 years. A recent paper begins ‘‘It is widely accepted that climate variability on time scales of 103 to 105 years is driven primarily by orbital, or so-called Milankovitch, forcing.’’ (McDermott et al., 2001).

The data and basic science does not support these statements concerning Milankovitch’s hypothesis.

What I am saying is not new to specialists in paleoclimatology.

From my copy of Principles of Paleoclimatology by Thomas Cronin Published 1999 page 147, Chapter 4, Orbital Climate Change


Eccentricity changes introduce such a small total changes in insolation, relative to those from precession and obliquity, that the degree to which eccentricity alters the earth’s climate has been a troublesome aspect of orbital theory. This is especially the case for the last 600 kyr when the 100 kyr cycle was evident. Translating small insolation changes in huge glacial/interglacial climatic swings characteristic of earth’s recent past has been difficult …

Why is Milankovitch’s hypothesis perpetuated as an urban legend?

The thermal haline interruption theory is also an urban legend. Basic logic and quantitative analysis using computer models shows that only about a 1/10 of the winter warming of the UK and Western Europe is due to the Atlantic Drift current. The other 9/10ths is due to prevailing winds.

This is an exceptional good article that explains the science. The prevailing winds that blow across the Atlantic ocean are from the west and south-west. Which explains why the east coast of North America at the same latitudes as the UK and Europe has cold winters as compared to the UK and Europe.

It is the wind blowing across the ocean that stores heat from the summer that is cause for the majority winter warming.

Why is this climate urban myth perpetuated?

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2006/4/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/1


If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe's mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.

Look at the analysis that is summarized in this graph.

http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=hBLaeJ1XhfL5+TVW3Qq5Wt0Os cjVJv13

[nauthiz]

The Venus post was a critique of the line of reasoning you were presenting. If you don't agree that our inability to explain exactly what caused Venus to be rotating the way it is, then presumably you should be able to see why I don't think your argument is compelling.

[heldervelez]

Atmospheric CO2 haD been DECREASING since 500 Mys (graph here (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml))
But, by 300 Mys the atmospheric CO2 was as low as now. What it means?
A contradiction ? No. All the CO2 that is missing in the graph, circa 300 Mys ago, became buried underground and is our present resource of energy (gas and charcoal). Marvelous nature. By those times the Earth has plenty of vegetable life.
The above link to the graph of 'genera' does not represent the total biomass but only the variety of life forms. Evolution needed time to do the work.
The recent increased in variety could signify that the 'press'/strugle for survival increased. CO2 famine? may be. As an example : in a healty society no one needs to recycle the garbage of others and, on the contrary, with limited resources, every bit of energy must be taken. Life had to diverge on genera.
And the overall Earh temperature ?
It was already established that in the last 500 Mys the temp was decreasing, but here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/abs/nature06510.html) is the confirmation that it was so since 3.5 Bys. The overall temp had to be greater than actual temp by at least 30ºC in order to 'ressurected' life strutures survive (and the authors also mentions that other kind of evidence exists (geological). And the 30ºC was a lower limit because they do not take in consideration eventual past 'pressure' increase.

CO2 toxic ? under 200 ppm is danger, under 100 ppm is total life extinction.
(On demand I can provide a link to a educational public photosynthesis book with the graphs)
High CO2 as a cause for life extinction ? :hand:

The talk is not anymore on GW (with the all that freeze that we are experiencing) but on 'climate changes' (new fashion).

Not even NOAA holds GW anymore.
(NOAA ,as of October 8, 2008, National Weather Service
JetStream - Online School for Weather (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm))



...
It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)

The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.

The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.

The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase. ...

[Stroller]

OK, fine, let's all agree for the sake of argument that the scientific community really does have it all wrong about one of the most studied molecular compounds in all of Creation, and you, armed with just a few pictures and no apparent knowledge of the actual theoretical background behind them, have proven them wrong.



Hi Nauthiz
It's not just me. Have a read of this (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf):

[Stroller]

That seasonal changes in temperature leads to variations in CO2 concentrations and that those concentrations lags behind the temperature changes because they are forced by them is nothing new, is not controversial and is irrelevant to the discussion of whether an increase in the average CO2 is forcing an increase in global average temperature.
Why are you tilting at that straw man?

Hi Henrik, just sorting out some of the basics before we move onto the main discussion.

By the way, I'm very glad you are sufficiently open minded to acknowledge that it is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Previously I didn't take very detailed look at Stroller's graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979.08/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000) because there weren't much point knowing that it was comparison of global and local datasets, and not very meaningful. Now I took a closer look, and there's couple of things worth mentioning.

First, timescale is different than in my graph, so it doesn't compare with my graph. Variations in my graph were annual variations most likely caused by annual seasonal cycle. Variations in Stroller's graph are decadal.

Second, for some reason, Stroller has manipulated datasets by choosing an option "every". This option takes one value of the datasets by given intervals. Interval used by Stroller is 12 which means it takes only one month's value for each year. But which month's value is used? Look at the starting times of the graph; CO2 starts from "1978.708" and SST starts from "1979.08". This means that Stroller has selected different starting year and starting month for the datasets so that they look better. Look what happens when we set both starting from "1978.08" (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.08/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978.08/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000), it doesn't look so clear case of CO2 lagging anymore. Another question is why use "every" option at all? Why not just plot the curves as they are? One possible answer is that with option "every" you can make just about any curve to match each other relatively well especially if you play with starting year and starting month like Stroller did. As an example, here is Hawaii CO2 with Antarctic sea ice index (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.08/every:12/derivative/to:2000/offset:31/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978.08/every:12/scale:2/to:2000), nice match. There's a brief time period where it seems that CO2 is leading a little. How they look without the option "every"? They look like this (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.08/derivative/to:2000/offset:3/scale:4/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978.08/scale:1/to:2000). As you can see, they are reverse to each other, their annual phase is six months off compared to each other. Yet, using the option "every" I was able to make them look like they were more in phase with each other. Let's take another example: here we have Antarctic sea ice with random noise test pattern (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/from:1978.08/every:12/derivative/to:2000/offset:32.5/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978.08/every:12/scale:2/to:2000). Even they seem to be very well in phase with each other. But taking away the option "every" (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/noise/from:1978.08/derivative/to:2000/offset:1/scale:10/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978.08/scale:1/to:2000) shows that these two have nothing in common.

I'll also show you how the global sea surface temperature from HadSST2 (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/diagnostics/) really looks like in my graph. It is attached. As you can see, the global SST doesn't have much common with Hawaii local CO2 and surface temperature. That is not a surprise.

So, here we have a prime example of Stroller trying to manipulate the truth. And it is not the first time...

[William]

It appears that this paper that allegedly falsifies the CO2 greenhouse effect has been published.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)




Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb

[nauthiz]

Hi Nauthiz
It's not just me. Have a read of this (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf):

I did. If you want that to convince me with that one, you'd better start addressing some of the points I've been making over the past couple pages of this thread. I get the impression that the impression that the paper's author has of how mainstream climatological theory says things should work is every bit as distorted as yours.

After that, for the Vezier-inspired portion of the paper you'd have to defend the cosmic ray flux model, which has been pointed out to conflict with the known data in some very glaring ways. For example, the CRF-driven theory predicts stratospheric warming. Greenhouse effect based models predict stratospheric cooling. Data for the real world has found. . . stratospheric cooling.

There's also the problem that Vezier is falling afoul of the classic mistake of confusing a correlation that was visually gleaned from a graph with actual data analysis. The time-scale problem, too - the CRF model is a fairly good candidate* for helping to explain some features of the paleoclimate, but the author just kind of starts with that point and then waves a magic wand a few times and (in the absence of any actual analysis of recent history) says "Shazam! This explains everything in contemporary times, too!" Not impressive.

It's also kind of cute how he waves a magic wand to turn anthropogenic CO2 emissions into natural CO2 emissions driven by some sort of celestial prankster.

Finally, there's something very fishy about a mid-2000s paper that shows data ranges with a cutoff date of 1990. (The 2005 paper, figure 14.) Possibly because it's well known that the solar cycle variations hypothesis was firmly discredited by the past two decades' worth of data. Obvious dishonesty or surprising carelessness? Maybe we'll never know.

*Fairly good, but not rock solid. From what I gather, there's still some reason to believe that it might be a false correlation due to some unknown third factor that was influencing the stuff we use to infer CRF. Until that is ruled out, we have to seriously consider the possibility that our data about CRF in ancient history is lying to us.

[nauthiz]

It appears that this paper that allegedly falsifies the CO2 greenhouse effect has been published.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

We just talked about Gerlich a couple pages ago.

I'm impressed that he got a paper that cites The Great Global Warming Swindle got published. Good for him.

Anyway, I still haven't read all ~100 pages of this regrettable catastrophe, but here's the synopsis that forms when I skim through it:

He seems to live in his own version reality. See a good example of his abysmal reading comprehension skills in section 3.3.2. Following after all that is a staccato of more sections like that in which it is made abundantly clear that the author cannot tell the difference analogies and laymen's explanations and an actual scientific theory.

He then proceeds to beat (his poor grasp of) these laymen's explanations into a bloody pulp with a giant litany of pedantic, spittle-encrusted words, and seems to think that this is a suitable proxy for discrediting an actual scientific theory. The poor guy seems to really have it stuck in his head that the greenhouse effect is supposed to work exactly like an actual greenhouse.


Also, the formula for the surface area of a sphere is not πr2.



In short, reading through this paper feels a lot like browsing Neal Adams's website (http://www.nealadams.com/morescience.html) except that Neal Adams is more entertaining.




Do you two really, truly, honestly think that this thing is convincing? I'm seeing three possibilities here: 1. You haven't actually looked at it. 2. I really missed something about that paper big-time. 3. It's time to re-open the possibility that this discussion should be moved to ATM.

[Klausnh]

1) I'm not expecting the temperature to rise 2C with another 13ppm
rise in co2
2) I'm not expecting the imminent collapse of the west antarctic coastal ice sheets while the surrounding sea temp hovers around zero over the year and the ground temp averages around -40C.

Steig et al have tortured a slight positive trend in temperature from 1950 out of somewhat fancifully interpreted and fabricated data. So how much ice do you see melting in antarctica if the temperature goes up from -40C to -39.6C over the next 20 years Klaus?

1)Correct me if I'm wrong. From your post, it appears you believe that CO2 is the only influence on temperature and that there is a direct relationship between temperature and CO2 levels?
2)But yet ice shelves continue to collapse even though the "sea temp hovers around zero over the year and the ground temp averages around -40C." Show me where anyone here is expecting the "imminent" collapse of the West Antarctic coastal ice sheet.

Not being a climate researcher, I cannot answer your question. However, I will direct you to the scientists doing the research. Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1441637320080114) is an article about previous ice loss.

Using satellites to monitor most of Antarctica's coastline, the scientists estimate that West Antarctica lost 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared to about 83 billion tons in 1996. The Antarctic Peninsula, which stretches toward South America, lost about 60 billion tons in 2006.



Please could you explain how the study you linked is "More evidence of CO2's affect(sic) on temperature:"No-one on the study seems to want to put their name to that assertion in the article you
linked. In fact, they blame the machinery:

"The drilling found that when atmospheric CO2 reached 400 parts per million (ppm) - around
4 million years ago - it exaggerated a 40,000-year cycle of warming and cooling caused by tilts in the Earth's axis. That was enough to melt the Ross ice shelf and create the conditions to melt the entire West Antarctic ice sheet."

Where's the beef?I bolded it for you.

[Klausnh]

It appears that this paper that allegedly falsifies the CO2 greenhouse effect has been published.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)




Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpbThat paper states
However, carbon dioxide is a rare trace gas, a very small part of the atmosphere found in concentrations as low as 0; 03Vol% How relevant is the .03Vol% when ~97% of the gases in the atmosphere are not GHG? Wouldn't it be more accurate to mention the amount of CO2 in relation to the GHGs?

[William]

We just talked about Gerlich a couple pages ago.


Let recap nauthiz.

The planet has stopped warming and has started to cool. There is no explanation as to why the planet has started to cooled.

The planet is at the end of the short interglacial cycle. Interglacial cycles have in the past ended abruptly.

We all know now the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly stopped.

Douglass et al's finding that the tropical troposphere was not warmed (see below) falsifies the general climate models. (i.e. The GCM indicates the tropical troposphere should have warmed. It did not.)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer


We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

The data does not support the AGW hypothesis.

Gerlich et al's paper has been published in a physics journal.

When data, analysis, and published papers do not support a theory. The theory is in crisis.

Besides the use of colorful adjectives do you have any scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 increases have caused and will cause the planet to warm?

Increases in CO2 will significantly benefit all plant life on the planet. It appears increases in CO2 will not result in a significantly warmer planet.

It appears very likely the environmental problem will we face is global cooling, not warming.

Houston we have a problem.

[nauthiz]

Gerlich et al's paper has been published in a physics journal.

That does not mean it's right. I'd still like to know which of the three possibilities I suggested above is the correct one. If you really are confident that Gerlich is right, then it would be great if you could explain to me what I missed.

[William]

That paper states How relevant is the .03Vol% when ~97% of the gases in the atmosphere are not GHG? Wouldn't it be more accurate to mention the amount of CO2 in relation to the GHGs?

Klausnh,
Low CO2 levels currently are a biosphere problem. CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 500 million years. Plants require CO2 to live.

C3 plants (Trees, shrubs, ) will grow almost twice as fast in an atmosphere that has twice 280 ppm CO2. C3 and C4 plants will in an atmosphere that has twice 280 ppm, use 30% less water.


If CO2 does not cause the plant to warm, it is an environmental benefit not a pollutant.

Now as it appears the planet is about to abruptly cool, we need to find some method to warm it.

Desertification P.Sinha

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2...um=1&ct=result


Quote:
…C3 plants respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2. At current levels of CO2, up to half of the photosynthate in C3 plants is typically lost and returned to the air by a process called photo-respiration, which occurs simultaneously with photosynthesis in sunlight.

Elevated levels of atmospheric C02 virtually eliminate photo-respiration in C3 plants. Higher levels of CO2 also sharply reduce …


Quote:
C4 plants also experience a boost in photosynthesis in response to a higher carbon dioxide level…

…the largest benefit for C4 plants received from high CO2 levels comes from reduced water loss. Loss of water through leaf pores declines by about 30 per cent in C4 with a doubling of CO2 concentration from the current atmosphere.

[nauthiz]

(As for my opinion on how compelling the Douglas paper is, see the second half of post #576 (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-20.html#post1454607). It was in response to something else, but the content is equally relevant.)

[Klausnh]

Klausnh,
Low CO2 levels currently are a biosphere problem. CO2 levels are at there lowest level in 500 million years. Plants require CO2 to live.

C3 plants (Trees, shrubs, ) will grow almost twice as fast in an atmosphere that has twice 280 ppm CO2. C3 and C4 plants will in an atmosphere that has twice 280 ppm, use 30% less water.


If CO2 does not cause the plant to warm, it is an environmental benefit not a pollutant.

Now as it appears the planet is about to abruptly cool, we need to find some method to warm it.

Desertification P.Sinha

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jZb2...um=1&ct=result
That didn't answer my question.

[Klausnh]

Let recap nauthiz.

The planet has stopped warming and has started to cool. There is no explanation as to why the planet has started to cooled.

The planet is at the end of the short interglacial cycle. Interglacial cycles have in the past ended abruptly.

We all know now the solar magnetic cycle has abruptly stopped.

Douglass et al's finding that the tropical troposphere was not warmed (see below) falsifies the general climate models. (i.e. The GCM indicates the tropical troposphere should have warmed. It did not.)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer



The data does not support the AGW hypothesis.

Gerlich et al's paper has been published in a physics journal.

When data, analysis, and published papers do not support a theory. The theory is in crisis.

Besides the use of colorful adjectives do you have any scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that CO2 increases have caused and will cause the planet to warm?

Increases in CO2 will significantly benefit all plant life on the planet. It appears increases in CO2 will not result in a significantly warmer planet.

It appears very likely the environmental problem will we face is global cooling, not warming.

Houston we have a problem.
If the planet has cooled since 1998, shouldn't the mountain glaciers be growing?

[Gillianren]

By the way, I'm very glad you are sufficiently open minded to acknowledge that it is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion.

There's a difference between a discussion and a debate.

[Stroller]

There's a difference between a discussion and a debate.
Ah, the philosophy of language. A bit like going to a good restaurant, and eating the menu. :)

[Gillianren]

Or, you know, vital to communication. It would behoove you to learn how to use words properly.

[William]

If the planet has cooled since 1998, shouldn't the mountain glaciers be growing?

Klausnh,

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/178433-Two-years-of-cooling-has-destroyed-global-warming-consensus


Despite the 'consensus' of scientists that we are told agree that global warming is a fact, I observed more snow on the mountains, the glaciers had seemingly grown in size, and the climate had become noticeably cooler. The locals - virtually all of them farmers - confirmed this. And last year was in fact the first year we had hiked through the Cordillera Negra - the more temperate and dryer range of the Peruvian Andes - and experienced cloudy days with wind-blown chilling rains.


David Deming a geophysicist and Adjunct Scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis and an Associate Professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, writing in the Washington Times on December 10 stated, "...The last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over. This year began with a severe spell of winter weather in China."

I believe the mountain glaciers have started to grow.

I notice the British Meteorological Society is now predicting 30 years of colder weather. There is a curious set of news articles about record cold events in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere.

As I said based on what has happened in the past it appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

I have four points.

1) CO2 does not cause significant global warming. Something must be incorrect in the basic science. Douglass et al's finding that there is not warming in the tropical troposphere provides support for that statement. Point 2 will settle the issue.

2) The planet is about to abruptly cool not warm. Point 2 is based on what has happened before when there was an abrupt interruption of the solar magnetic cycle. There is early indication of cooling in both hemisphere. Have you looked at the graphs of the glacial/interglacial climate cycle?

3) Increasing CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere and all life on the planet. That has been known by biologists for sometime. It is common practice to inject CO2 into greenhouses to increase growth rates and yield.

4) Those how believe in environmental protection should be advocating increased CO2 emissions, habitat preservation, and research in to means to warm the planet. I am assuming that it is possible for people to change their minds based on the science and data.

[Stroller]

Or, you know, vital to communication. It would behoove you to learn how to use words properly.

I joke because I studied it.

[nauthiz]

So, what about my question about the Gerlich paper?

[Klausnh]

Klausnh,

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/178433-Two-years-of-cooling-has-destroyed-global-warming-consensus





I believe the mountain glaciers have started to grow.

I notice the British Meteorological Society is now predicting 30 years of colder weather. There is a curious set of news articles about record cold events in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere.

As I said based on what has happened in the past it appears we are going to experience a Heinrich event.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/

I have four points.

1) CO2 does not cause significant global warming. Something must be incorrect in the basic science. Douglass et al's finding that there is not warming in the tropical troposphere provides support for that statement. Point 2 will settle the issue.

2) The planet is about to abruptly cool not warm. Point 2 is based on what has happened before when there was an abrupt interruption of the solar magnetic cycle. There is early indication of cooling in both hemisphere. Have you looked at the graphs of the glacial/interglacial climate cycle?

3) Increasing CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere and all life on the planet. That has been known by biologists for sometime. It is common practice to inject CO2 into greenhouses to increase growth rates and yield.

4) Those how believe in environmental protection should be advocating increased CO2 emissions, habitat preservation, and research in to means to warm the planet. I am assuming that it is possible for people to change their minds based on the science and data.


I'm sorry. Any site that states
David Deming a geophysicist and Adjunct Scholar at the National Center for Policy Analysis and an Associate Professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, writing in the Washington Times on December 10 stated, "...The last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over. This year began with a severe spell of winter weather in China." I cannot take seriously.
So despite the fact (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html) that
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 Easterbrook, from your watts site, proclaims
“Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over! I find that hard to accept.

With such an extraordinary claim as "CO2 does not cause significant global warming.", I'll need some better evidence than you've so far provided. The Douglas paper has already been addressed and has not convinced me.

Last year you also predicted that by January 2009 we would be seeing global temperatures equal to those of the 1880s. Why should I believe that "The planet is about to abruptly cool not warm"?

[William]

I'm sorry. Any site that states I cannot take seriously.
So despite the fact (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html) that Easterbrook, from your watts site, proclaims I find that hard to accept.

With such an extraordinary claim as "CO2 does not cause significant global warming.", I'll need some better evidence than you've so far provided. The Douglass paper has already been addressed and has not convinced me.

Last year you also predicted that by January 2009 we would be seeing global temperatures equal to those of the 1880s. Why should I believe that "The planet is about to abruptly cool not warm"?

Abrupt climate change warming and cooling is cyclic. My prediction for January 2009 was based on what has happened before. I believe I was one year off. We should see 19th century cold in the winter of 2009/2010.

There is some indication of cooling for the winter 2008/2009. For example in the Prairie region of Canada, the 2008/2009 winter was 3C colder than the 20 year average. The winter in the UK 2008/2009 was the coldest in 20 years.

The solar magnetic cycle mechanisms that are alleged to modulate our planet's climate are dependent on the strength of the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field strength has decayed 30% in the last 1000 years. (This means if the same solar event occurs now as did 1400 years ago, there will be more cooling of the planet.)

The rate of decay of the geomagnetic field strength has accelerated and if extrapolated the geomagnetic field strength will be zero in a thousand years.

http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf



Cold-climate abrupt change occurs with a characteristic timescale of approx. 1500 years, a feature that must be explained by any proposed mechanism. North Atlantic and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) records exhibit a period of approx. 1470 years (64, 65). However, the adjacent ice core isotope record from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) site exhibits periods closer to 1670 and 1130–1330 years, which is in agreement with the independently dated record from Hulu Cave (49, 66). Timeseries studies generally converge on a picture of a noisy climate system paced by a regular, perhaps external, forcing, with the sensitivity of the system to the forcing varying depending on background conditions or stochastic variability [e.g., (67–69)].




We now know that parts of Earth were nearly as warm as the mid-twentieth century between AD1000 to 1100 and that this generally warmer period was followed by colder temperatures at least in the Northern Hemisphere before giving way to the unprecedented global warming of the twentieth century (76–79). In the instrumental temperature record, perhaps the clearest example of abrupt change occurs in the late 1970s when global temperature began an unusually steep rise (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp). This transition coincides with a step-like change in the state of the tropical Pacific toward more El Ni˜no-like conditions and in the extratropical Pacific toward generally warmer conditions and altered circulation (80, 81).

[Stroller]

So, what about my question about the Gerlich paper?
Not sure if that question is to me or the person who quoted it as now having been published in a journal? :)

[Ari Jokimaki]

The models are incorrect in terms of CO2 saturation and the planet's response to a change in forcing. From a scientific standpoint there is no explanation as to what is causing the glacial/interglacial cycle and the abrupt cooling and warming events in the cycle.
The CO2 saturation claim has no base whatsoever, see here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/) and here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii). I once saw a climate sceptic describing (or, rather presenting it as a fact) a simple calculation based on CO2 basic absorption properties that was supposed to show that greenhouse effect of CO2 saturates after about 10 meters of atmosphere with current CO2 concentration. I pointed out that the calculation didn't take collision induced absorption into consideration. The climate sceptic in question hadn't even heard of such a thing...


It is not possible to construct a model if a key massive forcing function is not known. The modeler attempts to curve fit the model to match the data. If the model is sufficiently complicate it is possible to curve fit however the model has no scientific value.


http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACUL...SA%20Today.pdf

From Wally Broecker's Climate is an Angry Beast Article

Broecker's abstract states:


Unfortunately, because no atmospheric model to date has been able to create the observed large and abrupt changes in climate state of Earth’s atmosphere, we lack even the crudest road map.
Now, we have to note that Broecker's article is from 1999. In the world of climate models, this article is ancient old. But yet, William treats this as a last word in the field. As usual, William has just selected one paper that says what he wants and haven't studied the issue further. Modern models can simulate past abrupt climate changes quite well, see for example LeGrande et al. (2005) (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/837.full) and Wang & Mysak (2006) (http://www.esmg.mcgill.ca/zhaomin_paper/zhaomin%20paper.pdf). We seem to be in a state where we have the basic features nailed down, and we are polishing the details, like in Li & Battisti (2008) (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Li_Battisti_2007_inpress.pdf) for example.


Global warming is being pushed, by welling meaning people, as an indirect method of environmental protection. As I have stated, the science indicates, that a doubling of CO2 will result in almost of a 50% increase in C3 plant growth rate and a 30% decrease in water required for both C3 and C4 plants. CO2 is necessary for plant life and as all life is linked necessary for animals. Increased CO2 is good for the biosphere.
As you have a habbit of moving your arguments from thread to thread (and ignoring counterarguments from the source thread), I just point out my take on biosphere vs. increased CO2 (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/70431-planetary-temperature-change-3.html#post1457374) (which William tried to just handwave off) from the other thread.


Douglass et al's finding that the tropical troposphere has not warmed provides direct support for that statement.
This was already discussed in this thread. Here is the original claim (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449681) by you, and in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449775) I addressed the issue (btw. this is an example of a post containing lot of questions and argumentation William has ignored). You then responded (largely ignoring my arguments) here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449893), and I then pointed out that you didn't really answer anything (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451262), but you ignored that as well.


Milankovitch's hypothesis is the urban myth of paleo-climatology.
This was also already addressed before in this thread. You just repeat your claims over and over and ignore practically all the counter-arguments and questions about your claims.

When are you going to answer my questions made in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-20.html#post1455018) (as an example of my many posts containing direct questions to you that you have ignored)?

[Stroller]

Previously I didn't take very detailed look at Stroller's graph (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979.08/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000)
Stroller has manipulated datasets by choosing an option "every". This option takes one value of the datasets by given intervals. Interval used by Stroller is 12 which means it takes only one month's value for each year. But which month's value is used? Look at the starting times of the graph; CO2 starts from "1978.708" and SST starts from "1979.08". This means that Stroller has selected different starting year and starting month for the datasets so that they look better.

So, here we have a prime example of Stroller trying to manipulate the truth. And it is not the first time...

You really should check your facts before shooting your mouth off like this Ari. Here's the same graph again with matching start dates. As you can see, it's virtually identical to the first graph, and co2 still lags temperature by an average of around 7-9 months, just as it does on your own graph, if only you were able to read it correctly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978.708/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000

[Ari Jokimaki]

You really should check your facts before shooting your mouth off like this Ari. Here's the same graph again with matching start dates. As you can see, it's virtually identical to the first graph, and co2 still lags temperature by an average of around 7-9 months, just as it does on your own graph, if only you were able to read it correctly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978.708/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000
Oh, you still continue this rubbish. How low can you go?

The curves change depending of the number you select as a starting point due to your "every"-manipulation. Starting both with 1978.08 produces entirely different outcome than your "1978.708" (which is so strange value to use that nobody will believe that you intended to use that initially). That of course was not the point of my last post. You did use different starting points for the curves, and you did choose to use the option "every". Tell us, why are you using the option "every"? Why are you trying to manipulate the facts like that?

[Stroller]

Oh, you still continue this rubbish. How low can you go?

The curves change depending of the number you select as a starting point due to your "every"-manipulation. Starting both with 1978.08 produces entirely different outcome than your "1978.708" (which is so strange value to use that nobody will believe that you intended to use that initially). That of course was not the point of my last post. You did use different starting points for the curves, and you did choose to use the option "every". Tell us, why are you using the option "every"? Why are you trying to manipulate the facts like that?

Taking data points at 12 month intervals is a simple and legitimate way of rmoving seasonal variability. The start points were chosen to coincide with average cyclic minima in the data, for reasons I won't bother trying to explain. But whichever start points you use, the result still shows that co2 lags temperature by 7-9 months, which is the reall issue you refuse to address, and try to obfuscate by your snide accusations.

[mugaliens]

Or, you know, vital to communication. It would behoove you to learn how to use words properly.

Exactly. Discussions are analogous to walks in the park whereas debates are more along the lines of boxing matches.

[Klausnh]

Abrupt climate change warming and cooling is cyclic. My prediction for January 2009 was based on what has happened before. I believe I was one year off. We should see 19th century cold in the winter of 2009/2010.

There is some indication of cooling for the winter 2008/2009. For example in the Prairie region of Canada, the 2008/2009 winter was 3C colder than the 20 year average. The winter in the UK 2008/2009 was the coldest in 20 years.

The solar magnetic cycle mechanisms that are alleged to modulate our planet's climate are dependent on the strength of the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field strength has decayed 30% in the last 1000 years. (This means if the same solar event occurs now as did 1400 years ago, there will be more cooling of the planet.)

The rate of decay of the geomagnetic field strength has accelerated and if extrapolated the geomagnetic field strength will be zero in a thousand years.

http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/geog41066/7-Overpeck.pdf

We now know that parts of Earth were nearly as warm as the mid-twentieth century between AD1000 to 1100 and that this generally warmer period was followed by colder temperatures at least in the Northern Hemisphere before giving way to the unprecedented global warming of the twentieth century (76–79). In the instrumental temperature record, perhaps the clearest example of abrupt change occurs in the late 1970s when global temperature began an unusually steep rise (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp). This transition coincides with a step-like change in the state of the tropical Pacific toward more El Ni˜no-like conditions and in the extratropical Pacific toward generally warmer conditions and altered circulation (80, 81).
First, the CO2 levels of AD1000 to 1100 were not at today's levels. Current theory states that GHG are a significant influence on temperatures. I know you don't accept that, but unless you can convince climatologists current theory is wrong, the increase in temperatures in the past do not tell us much about what is happening today.
Second, from your link:

6.3.What Evidence Exists for Recent Abrupt,
Anthropogenic Climate Change?
Based on paleoclimatic observations, modeling, and theory, there is reason to believe that anthropogenic climate change is already causing abrupt climate change in some cases and is driving the climate system toward thresholds beyond which other abrupt change is inevitable. The recent convergence of theory and observations (see section 3.5) suggests that an abrupt increase in strong tropical storms has already begun. As discussed in section 3.6, Asian and African monsoon systems may be starting to change abruptly. Although statistically robust attribution is not yet possible, the ongoing near-decadal drought of western North America appears linked to tropical SSTs that are highly suggestive of anthropogenic forcing (176). Moreover, the severity of this current drought has been made worse by concurrent
record warmth, highlighting that this western U.S. drought may be the first anthropogenic drought of the twenty-first century, with significant human and ecological impacts [e.g., (177)].
So the authors acknowledge our influence on climate.

[nauthiz]

Not sure if that question is to me or the person who quoted it as now having been published in a journal? :)

It was addressed to both you and William. Both of you have presented it as evidence for your claims. Whether or not it is now published in a mainstream journal had nothing to do with what I was asking.

So which is it? Did you guys look through it? Can you explain to me what about it your understanding of the paper's criticism and what you found compelling about it?

ETA: This is an important question to me because I'm starting to have some doubts over whether this is an honest, open scientific discussion or something a Gish gallop.

[nauthiz]

You really should check your facts before shooting your mouth off like this Ari. Here's the same graph again with matching start dates. As you can see, it's virtually identical to the first graph, and co2 still lags temperature by an average of around 7-9 months, just as it does on your own graph, if only you were able to read it correctly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.708/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978.708/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000

However, the graphs start to look very different if you keep them honest by averaging over the sampling period rather than cherry-picking the sample points.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/mean:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978/mean:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000

[Ivan Viehoff]

Arctic Sea Ice approaches 20 year average.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
An equally valid caption for that diagram would be "Winter Arctic sea ice extent less than 20 year average, despite coldest winter for (fill in number according to your local preference) years."

But as I keep on pointing out, we don't learn much about climate by looking at winter sea ice extents. What the pole does when it is pointing into the darkness of space in the winter is get very cold. We learn a lot more by looking at summer sea ice extents. Also, sea ice extent has very little effect on sea-level.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Hi Ivan,
I found a copy of the paper that explains the CO2 cycle and CO2 burial mechanisms (what removes CO2 from the atmosphere/biosphere.) This is a good paper I would recommend it.
....
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/sigman/paperpdfs/Sigman00Nature.pdf
Thanks. That is a useful paper I'm looking forward to reading more carefully.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Not even NOAA holds GW anymore.
(NOAA ,as of October 8, 2008, National Weather Service
JetStream - Online School for Weather (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm))
"....In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)"

Well I'm not sure an exercise for students, written by Anonymous, can be described as NOAA's official view. Those NASA temperatures are US surface temps, not world temps.

All this seems to say to me is that there are things other than CO2 affecting temperature. Which is no great secret. Other things being equal, CO2 increases temperature, and the experiment the students are asked to perform demonstrates that.

[mugaliens]

Those who think that more CO2 is good, should take a look what Kiehl & Shields (2005) (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/Kiehl-Shields.pdf) say about greatest mass extinction event (the Permian-Triassic extinction event that happened 251 million years ago) in history:

Any change in the environment, whether an increase or decrease, in any significant area including, but not limited to, CO2, H20, sunlight, temperature, nitrogen, aerosols, pH, etc. will result in extinctions. Even in a pure, steady-state environment (good luck finding that fiction anywhere on this side of the Big Bang) life's various cultures will continue to ebb and flow, as life itself is as chaotic as the turbulent flow of fluids along a boundary layer.

Too many rats
and not enough cats.
The cats got fat
As they ate the rats,
Until too many cats,
and not enough rats.
The cats got lean
as the rats lept between
Eating the cats
until we again had too many rats.

[nauthiz]

Any change in the environment, whether an increase or decrease, in any significant area including, but not limited to, CO2, H20, sunlight, temperature, nitrogen, aerosols, pH, etc. will result in extinctions. Even in a pure, steady-state environment (good luck finding that fiction anywhere on this side of the Big Bang) life's various cultures will continue to ebb and flow, as life itself is as chaotic as the turbulent flow of fluids along a boundary layer.

True. But I don't think that really addresses the concern. Presumably a lot of folks who are worried about a human-caused sudden mass extinction event are aware that extinction is always happening, but are still concerned about it because a sudden mass extinction event would probably be a lot less fun to live through than the (variable, but) relatively low rates of extinction that our species has experienced thus far.

[JESMKS]

The alpine glaciers and snowfields on the east side of Mt Baker in Washington State have been growing in size for the past three years. This does not necessarily mean cooling, it only mean that accumulation has exceded melting and nature is seeking a new balance between accumulation and melting.

[William]

First, the CO2 levels of AD1000 to 1100 were not at today's levels. Current theory states that GHG are a significant influence on temperatures. I know you don't accept that, but unless you can convince climatologists current theory is wrong, the increase in temperatures in the past do not tell us much about what is happening today.
Second, from your link:
So the authors acknowledge our influence on climate.

Klausnh,

Correct, CO2 levels AD 1000 to 1100 were not as high as they are today. Yet the planet was as warm as it is now. What mechanism warmed the planet then? In the past the planet abruptly cools after the warming events.

The planet is starting to cool now. Why?

The paper concerning abrupt climate change has no explanation as to what mechanism caused the cyclic abrupt climate changes in the past.

Ari,
Your links and arguments do not make sense. For example, I provided data that shows plant growth will double with CO2 increasing to double 280 ppm
and plants' requirement for water will be reduced by 30%. This is not new science. It is common practice to inject CO2 into greenhouses at around 2 to 3 times 280 ppm as that increases yield.

In reponse you provide a link to a paper that discusses the Permian-Trissac Extinction at which time O2 levels dropped to lethal limits. CO2 was 12 times 280 ppm. CO2 has been higher than 12 times 280 ppm. No extinction. What is your point, if all the fossil fuel in the world were burned in a single day, CO2 levels would reach 3 to 5 times. Obviously that is not possible and plants can and would absorb the CO2.

I provided a link to Carl Wunsch paper that shows that orbital insolation changes does not drive the glacial/interglacial cycle (Less than 20% correlation). Your response is a paper by Hansen that has nothing to do with orbital insolation and the glacial/interglacial cycle.

I provided a link to Douglass et al's paper that shows the tropical troposphere has not warmed. You provide a link to the Realclimate site which notes the lower stratosphere is CO2 staturated and most of the Co2 warming should by the CO2 theory take place in the "troposphere". You appear to not see or ignore Douglass et al's paper that disproves the mechanism. Something must obviously be fundamentally incorrect with the theory.

Let's agree to disagree and wait for more data.

The planet is cooling. The AGW advocates have discounted the solar effect on planetary temperature. A drop in planetary temperature beyond the limits allowed by the AGW advocates will disprove the AGW hypothesis.

[Klausnh]

Klausnh,

Correct, CO2 levels AD 1000 to 1100 were not as high as they are today. Yet the planet was as warm as it is now. What mechanism warmed the planet then? In the past the planet abruptly cools after the warming events.That's not what this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) shows


The planet is starting to cool now. Why?
Previously linked:
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 How do you get the planet is cooling out of that?

[Stroller]

That seasonal changes in temperature leads to variations in CO2 concentrations and that those concentrations lags behind the temperature changes because they are forced by them is nothing new, is not controversial

I'm glad Henrik agrees with me on this, maybe Ari and Nauthiz will take it from him, since they don't seem to get it from the data presented, or even from the graph Ari generated for himself.




and is irrelevant to the discussion of whether an increase in the average CO2 is forcing an increase in global average temperature.

Since the changes in temperature always precede the changes in co2, I conclude that it is the temperature forcing the co2 level, not the other way round. As Allan Macrae points out, the future cannot cause the past.

I am happy to have a discussion about this though, since Ari doesn't seem capable of debate without becoming abusive when proven wrong.

[nauthiz]

I'm glad Henrik agrees with me on this, maybe Ari and Nauthiz will take it from him, since they don't seem to get it from the data presented, or even from the graph Ari generated for himself.

I've never contested that point. I agree with the whole of HenrikOlsen's post - my contention is pretty much the same as his - that visually analyzing the graphs you've been looking at in the way you have been analyzing them will not produce information that is relevant to the basic idea behind AGW.

That said, I'm getting the impression that you have a particular understanding of what AGW is supposed to mean, and that your kind of analysis is perfectly good for refuting that idea. The problem is, that idea does not seem to match the one I see in things like the IPCC report. When I read the arguments you're presenting, I often feel a bit like I'm watching Kirk Cameron triumphantly hold up a picture of crocoduck.






And I still want to know if I'm the only person in the room who bothered to take a look at the Gerlich paper. (A simple "yes" will suffice, by the way.)

[Torsten]

Since the changes in temperature always precede the changes in co2,

You've made this statement many times, sometimes adding that it is true "at all time scales". You've also stated that you estimate that only 10% of the recent increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, and 90% is due to temperature during the 20th century warming (here (http://www.bautforum.com/1417309-post378.html)).

But I do not recall you explaining how that can be true if the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere since industrialization greatly exceeds the amount that has accumulated there, and therefore fully accounts for the increase. What is the flaw in the logic of attributing all of the atmospheric increase to those emissions given that even with the MWP and Little Ice Age, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 only ranged between ~275 and ~284 ppm between 1010 and 1800, and 800,000 years of ice core data before then do not show levels greater than ~305 ppm?

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_1000_years_of_c02.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/1000_years_of_c02.png)

Is there a problem with the ice core record?
Are the data for emissions wrong?
Do the human emissions go one place while temperature induced increases come from some other place?

[William]

That's not what this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) shows
Previously linked: How do you get the planet is cooling out of that?

The Hockey Stick graph is a new creation that through cherry picking of data and mathematical manipulation removes the Medieval Warm period.

Prior published data such Brian Crowley’s Climate lessons from the past, which was included in the IPCC 1990 document, show the Medieval Warm period. Poof the hockey stick paper made the Medieval Warm period go away.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf

There is historical information and multi-proxy data all of which supports the existence of the Medieval Warm period. The Medieval Warm period was once called climate optimum as civilization flushed during the warm period. Britain exported wine to France.

The historical data (see this History Channel presentation for example) and the science (proxy data) is unequivocal. The planet was as warm in the Medieval Warm period as it was in the later part of the 20th century.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/little-ice-age-big-chill-part-2-of-11/3662936794

But please believe what ever you want. We live in free countries.

Perhaps you have not noticed the recent multiple observations of global cooling and recent predictions of global cooling (British Meteorological Society is predicting 20 to 30 years of cooling) by national meteorological organizations. I notice you keep quoting the data up until 2007. Is 2008 a problem for you?

We can settle of course this debate by waiting for more data.

I am curious as to the sociological implications of an abrupt drop in planetary temperature. (Why people believe what they believe and how long it takes groups of people to experience the paradigm shift.)

I try not to think about the practical implications of abrupt cooling.

[nauthiz]

The Hockey Stick graph is a new creation that through cherry picking of data and mathematical manipulation removes the Medieval Warm period. . .

An assessment that is not inconsistent with what AR4 has to say on the subject:


The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defi ned periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more
information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verifi cation of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude
of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

Since the TAR, a number of additional proxy data syntheses based on annually or near-annually resolved data, variously representing mean NH temperature changes over the last or 2 kyr, have been published (Esper et al., 2002; Crowley et al., 2003; Mann and Jones, 2003; Cook et al., 2004a; Moberg et al., 2005; Rutherford et al., 2005; D’Arrigo et al., 2006). These are shown, plotted from AD 700 in Figure 6.10b, along with the three series from the TAR. As with the original TAR series, these new records are not entirely independent reconstructions inasmuch as there are some predictors (most often tree ring data and particularly in the early centuries) that are common
between them, but in general, they represent some expansion in the length and geographical coverage of the previously available data (Figures 6.10 and 6.11).

<*snip*>

Figure 6.10b illustrates how, when viewed together, the currently available reconstructions indicate generally greater variability in centennial time scale trends over the last 1 kyr than was apparent in the TAR. It should be stressed that each of the reconstructions included in Figure 6.10b is shown scaled as it was originally published, despite the fact that some represent seasonal and others mean annual temperatures. Except for the borehole curve (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004) and the interpretation of glacier length changes (Oerlemans, 2005), they were originally also calibrated against different instrumental data, using a variety of statistical scaling approaches. For all these reasons, these reconstructions would be expected to show
some variation in relative amplitude.

Figure 6.10c is a schematic representation of the most likely course of hemispheric mean temperature change during the last 1.3 kyr based on all of the reconstructions shown in Figure 6.10b, and taking into account their associated statistical uncertainty. The envelopes that enclose the two standard error confidence limits bracketing each reconstruction have been overlain (with greater emphasis placed on the area within the 1 standard error
limits) to show where there is most agreement between the various reconstructions. The result is a picture of relatively cool conditions in the 17th and early 19th centuries and warmth in the 11th and early 15th centuries, but the warmest conditions are apparent in the 20th century. Given that the confidence levels surrounding all of the reconstructions are wide, virtually all reconstructions are effectively encompassed within the uncertainty previously indicated in the TAR. The major differences between the various proxy reconstructions relate to the magnitude of past cool excursions, principally during the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. Several reconstructions exhibit a short-lived maximum just prior to AD 1000 but only one (Moberg et al., 2005) indicates persistent hemispheric-scale conditions (i.e., during AD 990 to 1050 and AD 1080 to 1120) that were as warm as those in the 1940s and 50s. However, the long time scale variability in this reconstruction is determined by low-resolution proxy records that cannot be rigorously calibrated against recent instrumental temperature data (Mann et al., 2005b). None of the reconstructions in Fig. 6.10 show pre-20th century temperatures reaching the levels seen in the instrumental temperature record for the last two decades of the 20th century.

It is important to recognise that in the NH as a whole there are few long and well-dated climate proxies, particularly for the period prior to the 17th century (Figure 6.11). Those that do exist are concentrated in extratropical, terrestrial locations, and many have greatest sensitivity to summer rather than winter (or annual) conditions. Changes in seasonality probably limit the conclusions that can be drawn regarding annual temperatures derived from predominantly summer-sensitive proxies (Jones et al., 2003). There are very few strongly temperature-sensitive proxies from tropical latitudes. Stable isotope data from high-elevation ice cores provide long records and have been interpreted in terms of past temperature variability (Thompson, 2000), but recent calibration and modelling studies in South America and southern Tibet (Hoffmann et al., 2003; Vuille and Werner, 2005; Vuille et al., 2005) indicate a dominant sensitivity to precipitation changes, at least on seasonal to decadal time scales, in these regions. Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001; see Box 6.3), likely
associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000; see Chapter 4).

<*snip*>

The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that
the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr. Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more diffi cult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record, such as 1998 and 2005, in the context of the last millennium.

AR4 WG1 Chapter 6, section 6.6.1.1 (pp 466-474)

[orionjim]

...

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_1000_years_of_c02.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/1000_years_of_c02.png)

Is there a problem with the ice core record?
Are the data for emissions wrong?
Do the human emissions go one place while temperature induced increases come from some other place?


Hey Torsten,



The questions I would ask are:

Why did they change from 75 year smoothed data to a 20 year smoothed data?
Why did they put the 20 year smoothed data on the same chart as the 75 year smoothed data?
Does comparing actual data to proxy data make sense? Especially comparing it against 75 year smoothed data and 20 year smoothed data?
Why didn’t they use a Mauna Loa Ice core sample? :D
What on earth are they trying to prove with this chart?
All this shows me is that there is a difference between a 75 year smoothed, a 20 year smoothed and real data taken some place else. And looking at these differences this chart really doesn't suprise me.


Jim

[William]

An assessment that is not inconsistent with what AR4 has to say on the subject:

AR4 WG1 Chapter 6, section 6.6.1.1 (pp 466-474)

nauthiz,

The following graph is based on single proxy method.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

That graph shows how the climate changes. That graph is evidence of an unstable system with a strong periodic forcing function.

When the planet was warmer the oceans help to stop climate oscillation. The antarctic cold water which now covers the planet's deep ocean has stopped that mechanism.

When the planet was warmer there was strong top to bottom circulation in the ocean which would have brought nutrients to the surface. Now there are vast regions of the oceans were there is no life. One of the largest extinction in the ocean occurred when the antarctic cold water filled the deep ocean.

It is ironical we view preservation of ice caps on both poles as environmental protection.

[nauthiz]

What does that have to do with anything?

In particular, what does it have to do with the hockey stick or the medieval warm period?


(And I'm still waiting to hear what folks think about my assessment of the Gerlich paper. I spent time looking through it for y'all, so I'd very much like to hear some feedback.)

[Torsten]

Hi Jim:

It is a chart that I made from data I found in the files listed on that chart. The page that has links to the data files is Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html).

Why did they change from 75 year smoothed data to a 20 year smoothed data?
One of the files contains all the data and the 2 smoothed series. Looking at the raw data points in the file, I believe it is because the frequency of sampling before 1830 is too low to permit 20 year smoothing. After 1830 the frequency of samples increases, presumably justifying the 20 year smoothing.

Why did they put the 20 year smoothed data on the same chart as the 75 year smoothed data?
I did that because it would show more of the variation than if I kept the 75 year data all the way through. I added the Mauna Loa data because it shows continuity with the ice core data. If you look closely at that chart, you can see the area of overlap by the odd bits of magenta that show through the yellow line.

At the time I made that chart, I was in a bit of a hurry, and it didn't occur to me to separate out the raw points and show them as such. I've done that here, but I've had to change the scales to show more detail. I suppose I could have chosen to show just the raw data points and connected them with a line. I hope you appreciate that, just for you, I made sure that the y-axis on that first chart went down to zero. :D
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Law_Dome_CO2_1006-1978.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Law_Dome_CO2_1006-1978.png)

In this chart I've "zoomed in" even closer, and you can see how the 75 year smoothing compares to the 20 year for that period where the data file has both.
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Law_Dome_CO2_1832-1978.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Law_Dome_CO2_1832-1978.png)

Does comparing actual data to proxy data make sense? Especially comparing it against 75 year smoothed data and 20 year smoothed data?
I don't think proxy is the right characterization for the data. The samples are from bubbles of air encased in the ice. I don't know how they deal with diffusion through the snow and ice, or whether it is even an issue. The continuity of the lines, and more importantly the overlap of the raw data points with the Mauna Loa data, suggest to me that it is either not an issue or it has been successfully dealt with.

"What on earth are they trying to prove with this chart?"
I thought my text immediately above the chart would have made that clear.

It is my understanding that Stroller believes the 20th century rise in CO2 followed a rise in temperature, in contrast to GW theory's claim that accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 is now forcing a rise in temperature. He has indicated that he doesn't accept that the increase is due to human emissions. The point of the chart is to show that in the hundreds of years immediately prior to industrialization, CO2 levels did not vary anywhere near the amount by which they've climbed since then. Bringing together the different data sets shows that there is continuity between them. I think he needs to explain the relative stasis prior to industrialization, and why human emissions are not the cause of that big upturn, given that their amount actually exceeds the atmospheric accumulation. And, as shown elsewhere, there is no record of CO2 being higher than 305 ppm in the previous 800,000 years. I can't think of another way to get him to explain why we should think this rise is anything but anthropogenic. BTW, I also referred Stroller twice in one thread to that same argument (http://www.bautforum.com/1315731-post20.html) I gave Max last year showing the amount of human CO2 emissions versus atmospheric accumulation, and he didn't acknowledge it.

To me, the anthropogenic source of the increase in CO2 is just one of the basics that needs to be sorted out.

All this shows me is that there is a difference between a 75 year smoothed, a 20 year smoothed and real data taken some place else. And looking at these differences this chart really doesn't suprise me.

And the fact that the segments dovetail makes no impression on you? Anyway, you've seen that the 20 year and 75 year data are from the same source, and you've seen a chart that shows how they compare for the years where both methods of smoothing are available. Next, are you suggesting that the Mauna Loa data are real, and the Law Dome data are not? As far as them being from geographically different places, I thought it was fairly well established that annual averages of CO2 aren't that much different around the globe. I'd actually shown the difference between a Mauna Loa and an Antarctic air measurement in that same argument I mentioned above, so I didn't think I'd have to go over it in any detail again, but now that I think about it, I'm sure Stroller never read it. So, here's another chart (South Pole data from here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-spl.html)):
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Law_Dome_Mauna_Loa_and_South_Pole_C.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Law_Dome_Mauna_Loa_and_South_Pole_C.png)

It actually shows a slight difference in the magnitude of the trend between the Mauna Loa measurements and the flask measurements from the South Pole and I don't know why this is.

nauthiz: And I still want to know if I'm the only person in the room who bothered to take a look at the Gerlich paper. (A simple "yes" will suffice, by the way.)

I looked at that thing some time ago and thought it was silly.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Taking data points at 12 month intervals is a simple and legitimate way of rmoving seasonal variability.
No, you use averages for that (like nauthiz showed). You have done that yourself with averages before but for some reason you decided to use different method here. When taking data points at 12 month intervals, and ignoring other data points, there is no way of knowing where the dataset actually peaks. You have data points which are 1 year apart from each other, so the resolution of your method is +/- one year. You claim that there's a 7 to 9 months lag between temperature and CO2, but with resolution of +/- 1 yr, it means that "lag" is somewhere between 21 and -5 months. So, even with your manipulation effort, CO2 might be leading by 5 months. Selecting different starting points[/url] results in graphs, where situation is even more unclear, for example this one (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978.208/every:12/derivative/to:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979.08/every:12/scale:10/detrend:3/offset:1/to:2000) shows the two quite in phase, so the lag might be +/- 1 yr in this case.

In addition to that, removing seasonal variability is of course something you weren't supposed to do here because my graph showed exactly that, so removing seasonal variability makes any comparison with my graph meaningless. You claimed that CO2 lags temperature at all timescales, so why are you offering (grossly manipulated) graph with a different timescale than mine? You also continue to offer sea surface temperature while my graph had land surface temperature. Even if you would be able to show that CO2 lags sea surface temperature (which you haven't done), it wouldn't take away the possibility that land surface temperature would lag CO2, because there is a possible scenario that ocean warms which rises CO2 concentration which in turn warms land surface. And at any case, global SST is not the thing you need here, you need local SST to really show your case, Well, obviously you would also need to use honest research methods.

Besides, few posts ago I already showed that your method produces matching graphs with even random data. That should make anyone cautious about their methods, but you still keep insisting on the correctness of your method. That is a clear sign of what your game is here.

Haven't you just recently accused some climate scientists of torturing data? Looks like you don't do yourself what you preach to others.


The start points were chosen to coincide with average cyclic minima in the data, for reasons I won't bother trying to explain.
Reason is clear, there's no need to explain it. You could have shown the data as it is without tricks, like I did in my post #602 attachment. But that of course doesn't show what you want so you had to use tricks.

[Ari Jokimaki]

When looking at Torsten's graph (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Law_Dome_CO2_1006-1978.png), notice that CO2 concentration starts to rise before global temperature (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif). Global temperature starts to rise about 1910 and CO2 concentration starts to rise about 1750 but as CO2 concentration has been lower than average before that, we can say that CO2 concentration rises above average about 1850. So, there seems to be at least 60 years lag between these two, and CO2 concentration seems to be leading. But, we need to remember that CO2 concentrations in Torsten's graph are not exactly global, even if he had a good argument that "annual averages of CO2 aren't that much different around the globe", so caution must be exercised when making conclusions about this. Seems to be an example of anthropogenic CO2 concentration leading temperature, though. Good work, Torsten!

And nauthiz, some time ago, when I saw Gerlich's paper for the first time and realized that it assumes greenhouse effect to be same as in actual greenhouse, I lost my interest to the thing. It is good that there are people like you who have the energy to go through that rubbish and point out the flawed parts. I have to wonder about that journal publishing the thing, perhaps a sidebranch of Energy & Environment?

[Stroller]

You've made this statement many times, sometimes adding that it is true "at all time scales". You've also stated that you estimate that only 10% of the recent increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, and 90% is due to temperature during the 20th century warming (here (http://www.bautforum.com/1417309-post378.html)).

But I do not recall you explaining how that can be true if the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere since industrialization greatly exceeds the amount that has accumulated there, and therefore fully accounts for the increase. What is the flaw in the logic of attributing all of the atmospheric increase to those emissions given that even with the MWP and Little Ice Age, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 only ranged between ~275 and ~284 ppm between 1010 and 1800, and 800,000 years of ice core data before then do not show levels greater than ~305 ppm?

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_1000_years_of_c02.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/1000_years_of_c02.png)

Is there a problem with the ice core record?
Are the data for emissions wrong?
Do the human emissions go one place while temperature induced increases come from some other place?

Hi Torsten,
Actually, a bit further on the thread after I stated the 10% estimate, and after being referred to a paper by Ferdinand Englebeen, I said I'd be happy to revisit the data, since Ferdi is a smart guy, and he came up with a 45% estimate.

Thanks for the trouble you've taken working on the data. I do think there are serious issues with proxy data, and the saga over Mann's reconstructions shows. The current indications are that as co2 has increased, relative humidity in the upper troposphere has fallen. However that radiosonde data is also uncertain, and we live in a world where both sides will pick and choose which datasets they use to make their point.

As oceans warm at the surface, they release more co2. This is why your soft drink stays fizzy as it warms up to room temperature. We agree that temperature changes before co2 does, and to me this indicates that something or perhaps several things other than co2 are responsible for nearly all of the apparent temperature increase over the C20th.

One of them is that the agencies which measure temperature have been upwardly adjusting more and more as time has gone on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjusted/

Perhaps you know the reason for this upward adjustment?

Another could be changes in albedo, again a contentious area Ari and I have already had a lengthy exchange over. Again, a lot of uncertainties in the data.

Roy Spencer has shown that clouds are a negative feedback, rather than a positive feedback as they are used in the current models.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/

Nir Shaviv has shown insolation has a terrestrial amplifier which raises it's power of variation by an order of magnitude.
I cited some of the summary of his paper a few pages back.

All this indicates to me that the claim that human emitted co2 is mostly to blame for the C20th warming is a claim which has many uncertainties and some serious problems. The science is not 'settled'.

The IPCC cheerfully admits that there is a low level of scientific understanding in some of these areas, but then goes on to quantify a warming figure linked to human emitted co2 with '95% certainty'

This doesn't seem logical to me.

[Stroller]

When looking at Torsten's graph (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Law_Dome_CO2_1006-1978.png), notice that CO2 concentration starts to rise before global temperature (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif). Global temperature starts to rise about 1910 and CO2 concentration starts to rise about 1750 but as CO2 concentration has been lower than average before that, we can say that CO2 concentration rises above average about 1850. So, there seems to be at least 60 years lag between these two, and CO2 concentration seems to be leading.

Actually Ari, temperatures have been rising on average since the nadir in the little ice age before the industrial age got going.

You need to get yourself a longer temperature graph.

[Ari Jokimaki]

In reponse you provide a link to a paper that discusses the Permian-Trissac Extinction at which time O2 levels dropped to lethal limits. CO2 was 12 times 280 ppm. CO2 has been higher than 12 times 280 ppm. No extinction. What is your point, if all the fossil fuel in the world were burned in a single day, CO2 levels would reach 3 to 5 times. Obviously that is not possible and plants can and would absorb the CO2.
It is an example of an event when CO2 clearly wasn't good for the biosphere, contrasting your claims about CO2 being nothing but good for the biosphere. And it was only one thing of many things I offered in my response. Why are you ignoring other arguments and concentrating only to this one argument?

You still didn't answer my questions by the way.


I provided a link to Carl Wunsch paper that shows that orbital insolation changes does not drive the glacial/interglacial cycle (Less than 20% correlation). Your response is a paper by Hansen that has nothing to do with orbital insolation and the glacial/interglacial cycle.
This is why I have tried to ask you if you believe that there can be only one thing that controls global temperature. It's not about only the "orbital insolation changes", it's about orbital insolation changes + feedbacks (greenhouse gases for example). That is what Hansen et al. (and numerous other papers) are saying. So, did you read Hansen et al. already? Last time you started making claims about it without reading it. Also with this issue I originally responded with more than just one paper, original responses are here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451262) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451977).

You keep iognoring most of the counterarguments to your claims, and afterwards you just advertise how magnificent paper you have offered and how the opponents only offered one crappy paper. I wonder why is that, do you trust that people don't look back on our discussions and check your sayings?


I provided a link to Douglass et al's paper that shows the tropical troposphere has not warmed. You provide a link to the Realclimate site which notes the lower stratosphere is CO2 staturated and most of the Co2 warming should by the CO2 theory take place in the "troposphere". You appear to not see or ignore Douglass et al's paper that disproves the mechanism. Something must obviously be fundamentally incorrect with the theory.
So, now we again have to chack back what actually went on. Here is your argument (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449681) and here is my answer (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449775). It wasn't me that offered the RealClimate link, you did it yourself. I provided a link to a paper by Allen & Sherwood (2008), and then I went on to make some of my own arguments about the issue which you ignored. Here is your subsequent response (#5) (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1449893), and here's mine (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-18.html#post1451262) which again you ignored. You should of course remember all this, because I said all this already in my post yesterday (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-21.html#post1459347) to which you responded here. So, you are just parroting your claims again ignoring what others say about them.


The planet is cooling.
You haven't shown that. It's quite hilarious to look at what the Northern Hemisphere is actually doing (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif) while you highlight the local cold anomalies somewhere in Northern Hemisphere as supposedly having global significance.

[Torsten]

I only have time for a quick comment and then I have to go for the day. . . .
Actually, a bit further on the thread after I stated the 10% estimate, and after being referred to a paper by Ferdinand Englebeen, I said I'd be happy to revisit the data, since Ferdi is a smart guy, and he came up with a 45% estimate.

Actually, it was in that same post I linked, and you wrote:
"If he calculates the contributions of temperature and anthropogenic emissions to the increase in atmospheric co2 level to be roughly half and half during the C20th warming, I will revisit my own estimate of 10% anthropogenic 90% temperature." We really differ in what we think he is saying. He's arguing that there is a long term upward trend that is entirely caused by human emissions, and a yearly variation around that trend caused by temperature. You posted a formula that he had derived that partitions the variations into these two parts. The part of it that is written "+0.55d(emissions)" refers to the 55% of emissions that stay in the atmosphere and are the cause of the annual increase. In other words, he's agreeing that the emissions more than account for the yearly rise, with 55% of them accumulating in the atmosphere. If you check that calculation that I presented a number of times (latest is as a reference for Jim, above), you'll see that my estimate is that between 1900 and 2002, the amount that accumulated in the atmosphere was 56% of the emissions, meaning 44% went somewhere else.


Thanks for the trouble you've taken working on the data.

You're welcome.


As oceans warm at the surface, they release more co2. This is why your soft drink stays fizzy as it warms up to room temperature.

The oceans would release CO2, except that that atmospheric pCO2 is increasing and the transfer of CO2 is into the ocean. I've already posted a chart that shows decreasing alkalinity of surface waters (since you seemed to object to the term "acidification"). If you leave your soft drink out long enough, it will equilibrate with the atmosphere, and it'll do it faster if it's warm. The equilibrium pCO2 of the drink will increase if you pump CO2 into the air in that room.


We agree that temperature changes before co2 does, and to me this indicates that something or perhaps several things other than co2 are responsible for nearly all of the apparent temperature increase over the C20th.

And for me this is where you appear to lose the thread of reasoning. All of those "temperature before CO2" are for times when humans were not emitting large quantities of CO2. As has been shown, the human emissions far exceed the accumulation in the atmosphere. That readily quantifiable fact has to be included in your picture of global CO2 change. And I don't see it anywhere in your explanations.

[orionjim]

Hi Jim:

It is a chart that I made from data I found in the files listed on that chart. The page that has links to the data files is Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html).

...


Hi Torsten,

Good job!

The link to the data gave me some of what I was looking for. Near the bottom they had the 75 year smoothed average data for the whole set. And plotting that didn’t change the story.

Also, the bottom chart in your reply showing the data taken at the South Pole also removes another concern I had.

BTW, I smiled when I saw the chart starting at zero.

I don’t think my use of “proxy” is the right term either, but what they are reading isn’t the same as a direct reading.

Thanks for the info.


Jim

[Stroller]

my estimate is that between 1900 and 2002, the amount that accumulated in the atmosphere was 56% of the emissions, meaning 44% went somewhere else.

A 18% of it has gone into making trees fatter apparently.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current09/rainforest.htm
"The researchers show that remaining tropical forests remove a massive 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere each year. This includes a previously unknown carbon sink in Africa, mopping up 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 each year.

Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.

The scientists then analysed the new African data together with South American and Asian findings to assess the total sink in tropical forests. Analysis of these 250,000 tree records reveals that, on average, remaining undisturbed forests are trapping carbon, showing that they are a globally significant carbon sink.

“We are receiving a free subsidy from nature,” says Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds, and the lead author of the paper. “Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of climate change.”



The oceans would release CO2, except that that atmospheric pCO2 is increasing and the transfer of CO2 is into the ocean. I've already posted a chart that shows decreasing alkalinity of surface waters (since you seemed to object to the term "acidification"). If you leave your soft drink out long enough, it will equilibrate with the atmosphere, and it'll do it faster if it's warm. The equilibrium pCO2 of the drink will increase if you pump CO2 into the air in that room.

Has anyone calculated how much co2 the oceans are absorbing to account for the change in ph value? Has anyone calculated how much co2 is being absorbed where the oceans are cooling and how much is being emitted where they are warming?


And for me this is where you appear to lose the thread of reasoning. All of those "temperature before CO2" are for times when humans were not emitting large quantities of CO2. As has been shown, the human emissions far exceed the accumulation in the atmosphere. That readily quantifiable fact has to be included in your picture of global CO2 change. And I don't see it anywhere in your explanations.
"Human emissions far exceed the accumulation in the atmosphere."
So what? they are still tiny compared with natural emissions which far far exceed accumulation.
Temperature changes still precede co2 changes today. Although I agree the rate of change of co2 levels exceeds the rate of change of temperature levels, this doesn't prove the higher temperatures are being caused by the higher co2 levels.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:20/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:18/scale:8/offset:-2.3
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:12/detrend:20/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:18/scale:8/offset:-2.3 (done with moving averages to keep Ari and Nauthiz happy)

As the rest of my post which listed some of the other poorly quantified variables shows, there are other factors which affect temperature than co2, which is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, the effect of which is easily overcome by natural variability, as recent drops in global average temperature show. Additionally, the value for the climate's sensibility to co2 used in the IPCC's and GISS' models is way high, unproven, and poorly supported by theory and observation.

I don't mind if you want to stick with co2 for now, as long as you indicate to me that you are willing to discuss these other issues, including the strange upward adjustments of raw temperature data by USHCN and GISS later.

[William]

An assessment that is not inconsistent with what AR4 has to say on the subject:

AR4 WG1 Chapter 6, section 6.6.1.1 (pp 466-474)

Yes, I have read the IPCC comments on this subject. I am curious that they do not know there is unequivocal historical data that supports the assertion that the "medieval warm period" occurred. I guess that is why the period is called the "medieval warm period".

History Channel. The Medieval warm period was referred to as climate optimum as civilization flourished during that time. Grapes were grown during that period that were 300 miles north of current wine growing in England. England exported wine to France. Obviously the climate was warmer during the Medieval warm period.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/little-ice-age-big-chill-part-2-of-11/3662936794

Scientifically how could Mann et al's Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction have eliminated Climatic Optimum, AKA the Medieval Warm Period?

“A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non Tree Ring Poxies” by Craig Loehle

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/R0KAEMsTutI/AAAAAAAAALw/uWvtlwDOG0k/s1600-h/mwp-lia.JPG

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025





Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent climate changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Numerous regional to global climatic time series have been constructed (e.g., Crowley, 2000; Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Jones, 1998; Jones et al., 1999; Mann and Jones, 2003; Mann et al., 1995, 1998, 1999; Moberg et al., 2005; Overpeck et al., 1997; Viau et al., 2006). However, a number of questions have arisen about the validity of dendroclimatic methods when applied to periods greater than a few hundred years (see below). Data from numerous sites give the impression that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a real climatic episode (see reviews in Loehle, 2006; Soon and Baliunas, 2003 and below), but reconstructions from tree-ring data do not show this episode very well. The purpose of this paper is to develop a 2000-year temperature reconstruction that is not based on tree-ring data in order to see whether the MWP and Little Ice Age (LIA) can be detected from these records.


Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not capture long-term climate changes (100+ years) because tree size, root/shoot ratio, genetic adaptation to climate, and forest density can all shift in response to prolonged climate changes, among other reasons (Broecker, 2001; Falcon-Lang, 2005; Loehle, 2004; Moberg et al., 2005). Most seriously, typical reconstructions assume that tree ring width responds linearly to temperature, but trees can respond in an inverse parabolic manner to temperature, with ring width rising with temperature to some optimal level, and then decreasing with further temperature increases (D’Arrigo et al., 2004; Kelly et al., 1994). This response is most likely due to water limitation at higher temperatures, because higher temperatures increase evaporation rates.


The result of this violation of linearity is to introduce tremendous uncertainty or bias into any reconstruction, particularly for temperatures outside the calibration range. For example, tree rings in many places show recent divergence from observed warming trends, even showing downward trends (Briffa et al., 1998a,b; Pisaric et al., 2007). In a recent circumpolar satellite survey covering 1982 to 2003 (Bunn and Goetz, 2006), it was found that tundra areas showed increased photosynthetic activity, but forested areas showing a change evinced decreased photosynthesis and this effect was greater where tree density was higher. This effect probably reflects moisture limitations. If the temperature remained at the present level, over time the forest would adjust its density to come into equilibrium with available water and this decreased growth effect would dissipate.

[nauthiz]

Yes, I have read the IPCC comments on this subject. I am curious that they do not know there is unequivocal historical data that supports the assertion that the "medieval warm period" occurred.

Look again - the AR4 discusses that in its comments on the subject. Including in the bits I quoted. They even have a special discussion section devoted to the medieval warm period - Box 6.4, which starts on page 468. The last paragraph of it sums up their analysis rather well:


The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briff a, 2006). However, the evidence is not suffi cient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briff a, 2006).

[William]

Look again - the AR4 discusses that in its comments on the subject. Including in the bits I quoted. They even have a special discussion section devoted to the medieval warm period - Box 6.4, which starts on page 468. The last paragraph of it sums up their analysis rather well:

Is curious that the historical records from the Medieval Warm period show that warm weather type crops such as grapes grew in regions which are currently too cold for that type of crop. That would logically support Loechle's and others assertion (see and perhaps read the attached paper) that the dendro-climatic proxy method is not accurate beyond a 100 years for scientific reasons.

Oh well, why appeal to science. Mann et al's paper removed the Medieval warm period. If you look at the graph that is widely circulated, it shows a hockey stick with no Medieval warm period.

As you may or may not be aware there are many, many, cycles of warming and cooling, in the paleodata. Based on the past data and current science the planet is about to abruptly cool.

This particular cyclic change is rare, special. As I said volcanic activity correlates with periods of solar inactivity. Volcanic activity increase when the solar magnetic cycle is activity and decreasing when the solar magnetic cycle is not active.

The volcanic eruptions will cool the planet, however, volcanic eruptions only cool the planet for short periods. The volcanic dust settles out of the atmosphere.

It is the solar change which is causing the increase in volcanic activity which will cause the long term and abrupt climate change.

“A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non Tree Ring Poxies” by Craig Loehle, Published 2007

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/R0KAEMsTutI/AAAAAAAAALw/uWvtlwDOG0k/s1600-h/mwp-lia.JPG

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025


Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

[nauthiz]

If you get the full paper, you'll see that about half of it consists of a later addendum that identifies and corrects for a lot of data handling and statistical errors in the original paper. With those corrections in place, the ultimate implication of the paper doesn't hit far from the mark described in the IPCC report.

(Not that the original version of the paper was very far off, either. Given the sparseness and imprecision of the data, 0.3ºC isn't terribly different from the 0.2ºC suggested by AR4.)

[Torsten]

A 18% of it has gone into making trees fatter apparently.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current09/rainforest.htm
"The researchers show that remaining tropical forests remove a massive 4.8 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere each year. This includes a previously unknown carbon sink in Africa, mopping up 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. . . snip

Yes, I'm aware of that paper, though I have not read it. It does not surprise me that trees respond to increased CO2. That forest stands are capable of storing more wood volume if the environment is more fertile is a common phenomenon. In this example, the increased CO2 is akin to making the site more fertile. But as Lewis says, there is an upper limit to how much can ultimately be stored, and I'd expect the phenomenon to eventually peak, unless subsequent generations of trees actually undergo selection for traits that lead to even greater sizes than possible with the current sets of genes.

So long-lived stands of trees are one of the sinks for CO2, and the higher productivity could be pitched as a benefit, much as William has been doing in his discussion of C3 plants and low CO2 levels. Sizable though the sink may be, atmospheric CO2 levels continue to climb.


Has anyone calculated how much co2 the oceans are absorbing to account for the change in ph value? Has anyone calculated how much co2 is being absorbed where the oceans are cooling and how much is being emitted where they are warming?

I don't know.


"Human emissions far exceed the accumulation in the atmosphere."
So what? they are still tiny compared with natural emissions which far far exceed accumulation.

Okay, this is important. You haven't mentioned the natural uptake of CO2. The amount of natural emissions are huge, but the natural sinks are just as big. You can't mention the one without the other. That was the point of my first graph (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/1000_years_of_c02.png). Prior to industrialization, CO2 levels were doing their interglacial thing: fairly steady around 280 ppm for hundreds of years, varying up and down no more than ~8 ppm, but right close to the upper end of the range of variation experienced for 800,000 years. The line was more-or-less flat because the huge natural emissions were in a relative state of equilibrium with the sinks. It's only after we started burning large amounts of coal, oil, gas, and making cement (and maybe a few other things) that the CO2 started to dramatically climb. The human emissions are sufficiently large, and the sinks insufficient, that ~56% of what we put out there accumulates in the atmosphere. This chart of cumulative emissions and the concentration of CO2 is about as close as two things move in lockstep as you'll ever see:

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Cumulative_global_carbon_emissions_.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Cumulative_global_carbon_emissions_.png)

I used the Mauna Loa data because it is a simple and well known dataset, and I just summed the amount of carbon released each year beginning with 1959. I adjusted the two y-axis scales so that the start and endpoints of the two curves coincided, thereby emphasizing the similarity in shape. This isn't mere corrrelation of two unrelated items. This is about measuring how much of a chemical is being dumped, and the amount of it that piles up in the dump.


I don't mind if you want to stick with co2 for now, as long as you indicate to me that you are willing to discuss these other issues, including the strange upward adjustments of raw temperature data by USHCN and GISS later.

I'm actually really tired of the climate change debate. I find the tone in the blogs and here depressing. I don't like my own tendency to respond in a sharp tone. I also feel compelled to spend more time than I should on a topic, and it's not healthy. I have lot of exhausting field work to do, and I can't afford much more time at this.

I've only picked this particular topic with you because I feel it is so very basic, and if this one can't be figured out, then nothing can be.

[Ari Jokimaki]

The Medieval warm period was referred to as climate optimum as civilization flourished during that time. Grapes were grown during that period that were 300 miles north of current wine growing in England. England exported wine to France. Obviously the climate was warmer during the Medieval warm period.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/li...-11/3662936794

Scientifically how could Mann et al's Hockey Stick temperature reconstruction have eliminated Climatic Optimum, AKA the Medieval Warm Period?

“A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non Tree Ring Poxies” by Craig Loehle
On denialist standard lies about hockey-stick and Medieval Warm Period and on Loehle's "reconstruction":
RealClimate - "Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/)
NOAA Paleoclimatology - "The "Medieval Warm Period"" (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
SkepticalScience - "Hockey stick was debunked" (http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm)
A Few Things Ill Considered - "The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today" (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.php)
Open Mind - "Not Alike" (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/not-alike/)
Strange Weather - "The Loehle Reconstruction" (http://strangeweather.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/the-loehle-reconstruction/)

Grapes in England:
RealClimate - "Medieval warmth and English wine" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/)
RealClimate - "English vineyards again…" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/)

We also know that Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as today from radiocarbon dating of plants that have been exposed by melting glaciers. Dates of several thousands of years have been found for them. The plants have been in such a good condition that it is safe to say that they have been under the ice for the whole time until they were recently exposed by melting glaciers (Thompson et al., 2006 (http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf); Grosjean et al., 2007 (http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/people/grosjean/publications/Grosjean_et_el_2007_(JQS).pdf); Koch et al., 2007 (http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/ho_2007.pdf), for example).


Is curious that the historical records from the Medieval Warm period show that warm weather type crops such as grapes grew in regions which are currently too cold for that type of crop. That would logically support Loechle's and others assertion (see and perhaps read the attached paper) that the dendro-climatic proxy method is not accurate beyond a 100 years for scientific reasons.
The Thompson et al. paper I linked above shows hockey stick (Figure 6) reconstructed from ice cores without "dendro-climatic proxy method".


Oh well, why appeal to science.
So, you really think that your appeals to anecdotes about growing grapes in England have anything to do with science?

[Stroller]

Yes, I'm aware of that paper, though I have not read it. It does not surprise me that trees respond to increased CO2. That forest stands are capable of storing more wood volume if the environment is more fertile is a common phenomenon. In this example, the increased CO2 is akin to making the site more fertile. But as Lewis says, there is an upper limit to how much can ultimately be stored, and I'd expect the phenomenon to eventually peak, unless subsequent generations of trees actually undergo selection for traits that lead to even greater sizes than possible with the current sets of genes.

Giant redwoods?



It's only after we started burning large amounts of coal, oil, gas, and making cement (and maybe a few other things) that the CO2 started to dramatically climb. The human emissions are sufficiently large, and the sinks insufficient, that ~56% of what we put out there accumulates in the atmosphere. This chart of cumulative emissions and the concentration of CO2 is about as close as two things move in lockstep as you'll ever see:

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/th_Cumulative_global_carbon_emissions_.png (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/Cumulative_global_carbon_emissions_.png)

I used the Mauna Loa data because it is a simple and well known dataset, and I just summed the amount of carbon released each year beginning with 1959. I adjusted the two y-axis scales so that the start and endpoints of the two curves coincided, thereby emphasizing the similarity in shape. This isn't mere corrrelation of two unrelated items. This is about measuring how much of a chemical is being dumped, and the amount of it that piles up in the dump.

Judging by how happily the trees are sucking up a fifth of the extra co2 we are pumping out, I think it's probably not a big deal if the atmospheric proportion of this important (as plant food) trace gas rises from 0.028% to 0.039% or a bit higher.

It does make me wonder about the link between co2 and temperature that it's claimed the level didn't rise above 280ppm for many millenia prior to industrialization, yet the medieval warm period was around as warm as it is now. Maybe the much more extensive forests back in 1000AD just gobbled it all up. In any case, it's clear that the extra co2 going into, and staying in the atmosphere is by no means predominantly anthropogenic, as this link shows:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/
"THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels."


I'm actually really tired of the climate change debate. I find the tone in the blogs and here depressing. I don't like my own tendency to respond in a sharp tone. I also feel compelled to spend more time than I should on a topic, and it's not healthy. I have lot of exhausting field work to do, and I can't afford much more time at this.

I've only picked this particular topic with you because I feel it is so very basic, and if this one can't be figured out, then nothing can be.

Fair enough, I'm sure I won't have a problem finding others to discuss that stuff with (Or maybe I will, AGW proponents seem to have a strange reluctance to discuss adjustments to the temperature record, and the people who actually construct the adjusted data won't make their justification for them open to the public).

I just hope their approach to discussion is as reasonable as your own.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Has anyone calculated how much co2 the oceans are absorbing to account for the change in ph value? Has anyone calculated how much co2 is being absorbed where the oceans are cooling and how much is being emitted where they are warming?
There is large amount of papers on the subject, Orr et al. (2005) (http://www.up.ethz.ch/education/biogeochem_cycles/reading_list/orr_nat_05.pdf), Hoegh/Guldberg et al. (2007) (http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2008/FIL_000000000120/HoeghGuldberg%20et%20al.%202007%20complete.pdf), Doney et al. (2008) (http://www.bu-eh.org/uploads/Main/doney_ann_rev_proof.pdf)...


Temperature changes still precede co2 changes today. Although I agree the rate of change of co2 levels exceeds the rate of change of temperature levels, this doesn't prove the higher temperatures are being caused by the higher co2 levels.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...:8/offset:-2.3 (done with moving averages to keep Ari and Nauthiz happy)
Once again Stroller tries to present manipulated graphs here.

First, notice that Stroller has once again selected different start years. This is to falsely give emphasize the impression that temperature leads. Let's adjust the start years to match (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/mean:12/detrend:20/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:18/scale:8/offset:-2.3). CO2 now looks sloped so we'll adjust the detrending (and offset) a little (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/mean:12/detrend:22/offset:-363/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:18/scale:8/offset:-2.3).

Second, there is very limited time window here, so it is easier to find apparently matching variations from the datasets. If we expand the timescale, we see that they have less in common (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/mean:12/detrend:48/offset:-335/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/mean:18/scale:8/offset:-2.3) than one might think from Stroller's graph.

Third, Stroller has used averaging, but differently for each dataset. For CO2 there's 12-month averaging, but for temperature, there's 18 month averaging. Situation changes if we set both to 12 months (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/mean:12/detrend:22/offset:-363/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/mean:12/scale:8/offset:-2.3). What we have left is possible correlation with the large 1998 spike where temperature seems to be leading. Nobody is of course denying that some variations in CO2 concentration cannot lag temperature even today, because it is known from past climate data that temperature changes cause changes in CO2 concentration. We also have very good body of evidence saying that rising CO2 concentration causes temperature to rise, so Stroller's games here are irrelevant to the effects of anthropogenic CO2.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Fair enough, I'm sure I won't have a problem finding others to discuss that stuff with (Or maybe I will, AGW proponents seem to have a strange reluctance to discuss adjustments to the temperature record, and the people who actually construct the adjusted data won't make their justification for them open to the public).
A month ago I showed that one of these raw data adjustment claims from denialist camp is rubbish in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-15.html#post1437936). You seemed very uninterested about the subject then.

Talking about reluctance to discuss things, you still haven't answered my many questions you have ignored. It is very common that your interest to a subject stops as soon as you have made your rubbish claims about them.

[heldervelez]

In reply to tusenfem:

This paper for example, discusses the Younger Dryas abrupt temperature change. The largest solar change in the last 20 kyrs is noted to occur at the same time the planet abrupt changes from interglacial back to glacial.

Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas? By Hans Renssen et al.
..

the impact event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_event) as a cause for YD has momentum.
Recent references inside, namely the Nature Vol 447, 17/May/2007 here . (http://www.geo.arizona.edu/%7Ereiners/blackmat.pdf)
quoting " BLAST IN THE PAST?
A controversial new idea suggests that a big space rock exploded on or above North America at the end of the last ice age."
Evidence is tantalizing and does not favour the THC hypoteses as Hans Renssen and much others. The idea is not new and goes back to 1930s.
I'am not denying that also the "Reduced solar activity" was a fact and problably precedes the impact event (greenland core temps? I do not have present the references).
Humankind is not prepared to an event in such a large scale and the clock is ticking.
I share the view of Mr nauthiz in the previous post.

[Stroller]

A month ago I showed that one of these raw data adjustment claims from denialist camp is rubbish in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/82256-man-made-global-warming-skeptism-650-a-15.html#post1437936). You seemed very uninterested about the subject then.

Talking about reluctance to discuss things, you still haven't answered my many questions you have ignored. It is very common that your interest to a subject stops as soon as you have made your rubbish claims about them.

Thanks Ari, I'll take a look at that.
Meanwhile, check this;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjusted/

Talking of interest in subjects being dropped, what about co2 lag?
You complained about my 'every 12 months' graph parameter.
Here's a graph based on running averages which is bang up to date, and proves my point nicely.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/mean:13/detrend:18.5/offset:-365/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1997/mean:16/scale:8/offset:-2.6

My prediciton is, we'll see a strongly diminished rise in co2 this coming year.

Of course if you weren't wrong about co2 leading temperature, we'd have seen the drop already. When will you give up your rubbish claims and admit your error?

Perhaps you'll just go and insult William's intelligence instead.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Here's a graph based on running averages which is bang up to date, and proves my point nicely.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esr...:8/offset:-2.6
Yet another manipulated graph from Stroller, again with differing starting years and different averaging for each set. Why are you insulting our intelligence?


Of course if you weren't wrong about co2 leading temperature, we'd have seen the drop already. When will you give up your rubbish claims and admit your error?
You don't seem to understand that CO2 can work at the same time as a forcing and a feedback. Continuously rising anthropogenic CO2 concentration works as a forcing. If there are brief periods of cooling due to changes in the solar forcing for example, it doesn't take this CO2 forcing away, so you can have cooling periods even if anthropogenic CO2 concentration wouldn't drop. But natural CO2 sources and sinks exist just like they existed in the past. Natural CO2 sources and sinks work as a feedback, so they might be expected to drop when temperature drops. Anthropogenic CO2 is the one that leads temperature (but is difficult to show in a graph due to slow, steadily rising nature of the trend). Natural CO2 is the one that (usually) lags temperature. Do you really claim that you don't understand all this? Why everything that happens in global temperature should show in Hawaii CO2 record? And, why everything that happens in Hawaii CO2 record should show in global temperatures? You don't understand that both datasets might have several forcing factors?

Speaking of admitting errors, you still haven't acknowledged that you made false claims about climate models. You also have been avoiding to answer direct questions for a long time.

[nauthiz]

Talking about reluctance to discuss things, you still haven't answered my many questions you have ignored. It is very common that your interest to a subject stops as soon as you have made your rubbish claims about them.
Do these guys ever answer questions? It's like playing whack-a-mole; as soon as someone starts asking questions they just drop the subject for a few days before resurrecting the original argument later.

Add do it that I've all but given up on believing that either of them is even trying to be honest, and we have the makings of a discussion that really does not have any hope of going anywhere. There's no interest in actually explaining or defending the real guts of their viewpoints; just a lot of interest in making us spend a lot of time vetting their data sources to see if the paper/graph/whatever actually says what they say it does.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Do these guys ever answer questions? It's like playing whack-a-mole; as soon as someone starts asking questions they just drop the subject for a few days before resurrecting the original argument later.

Add do it that I've all but given up on believing that either of them is even trying to be honest, and we have the makings of a discussion that really does not have any hope of going anywhere. There's no interest in actually explaining or defending the real guts of their viewpoints; just a lot of interest in making us spend a lot of time vetting their data sources to see if the paper/graph/whatever actually says what they say it does.
Yes, it seems that they are using BAUT-forum just as a propaganda tool. It's pretty much the same as trying to discuss with creationists (which actually some of these climate denialists are), debate tactics are exactly the same.

[Gillianren]

My prediciton is, we'll see a strongly diminished rise in co2 this coming year.

Would you care to put some numbers behind it?

Will that take into account people working to reduce their carbon footprints?

What if you're wrong?

[Stroller]

Yes, it seems that they are using BAUT-forum just as a propaganda tool. It's pretty much the same as trying to discuss with creationists (which actually some of these climate denialists are), debate tactics are exactly the same.

Your comments become more outlandish by the hour. I'll leave you to it.