|
Post by glc on Jun 10, 2010 23:06:59 GMT
You squawk about how if it gets a degree colder CO2 will still be increasing. Yet we know it does for ~600 years after it starts cooling.
How do we know it carries on rising for 600 years after it starts cooling.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 11, 2010 0:09:14 GMT
You squawk about how if it gets a degree colder CO2 will still be increasing. Yet we know it does for ~600 years after it starts cooling. How do we know it carries on rising for 600 years after it starts cooling. GLC: If you have looked at the ice core graphs, it is very observeable that co2 rises for 600-800 years after it has cooled. That is the bone that all deniers of reality want to forget about.
|
|
|
Post by raytomes on Jun 11, 2010 3:59:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 11, 2010 8:45:47 GMT
You squawk about how if it gets a degree colder CO2 will still be increasing. Yet we know it does for ~600 years after it starts cooling. How do we know it carries on rising for 600 years after it starts cooling. GLC: If you have looked at the ice core graphs, it is very observeable that co2 rises for 600-800 years after it has cooled. That is the bone that all deniers of reality want to forget about. I was actually addressing this point specifically to Icefisher. The reason being that , in his previous post, he wrote You squawk about how if it gets a degree colder CO2 will still be increasing. Yet we know it does for ~600 years after it starts cooling.then a little further on he wrote But of course the AGW folks they know everything. They have done that using icecores with unvalidated CO2 assumptions of paleoatmospheres and assumed accompanying temperatures I was just wondering why he would be using "unvalidated assumptions from icecores" to make his point. So I ask the question again - how does he know about the lag. On a second point. You and he are wrong anyway. You say If you have looked at the ice core graphs, it is very observeable that co2 rises for 600-800 years after it has cooled. It's true that CO2 continues to rise after it has STOPPED WARMING. It is not clear that CO2 continues to rise for 600-800 years after it has STARTED COOLING. The warming/cooling periods involved last thousands of years. These are slow pocesses. The general pattern is as follows: Temps rise CO2 levels rise Temps hit peak and plateau CO2 levels hit peak ~800 years later and plateau Temps start to fall CO2 starts to fall .... and so on
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 11, 2010 10:33:49 GMT
For all those who are still confused by the magnitude of the CO2 response to temperature (~20ppm per deg C). This is from Nigel Calder (co-author of 'The Chilling Stars') The implication is that the CO2 thermometer is not the whole story. Man-made emissions must have contributed to the increase of the past 100 years. How significant that has been as a driver of the temperature increase is another question entirely. From calderup.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/co2-thermometer/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 11, 2010 14:55:48 GMT
I was just wondering why he would be using "unvalidated assumptions from icecores" to make his point. So I ask the question again - how does he know about the lag. I would think the answer should be obvious. Say somebody asks you how high were the Appalachian mountains. Indeed the historic record is preserved where one can see that the mountain range exists but the mountains from many millions of years ago are not as high as they once were due to erosion. While you can pretty well pin down their existence and their spacing and their relative sizes a lot of detail is missing, smaller variations washed away and their historic maximum dimensions may never be known to any relevant detail to what you are trying to use the dimensions for. Thus it should be pretty easy to understand how the diffusion of gases in ice cores would still leave traces of their existence and perhaps some of the coarser details of relative size(otherwise the scientists who claim to find gases in icecores are lying) but err on their interpretation of their absolute levels (a much more likely scenario as an alternative to conspiracy to defraud) You are kind of an all or nothing type thinker in a gray world. Not a very effective approach to either thinking or argument. One would think the answer apparent. On a second point. You and he are wrong anyway. You say
If you have looked at the ice core graphs, it is very observeable that co2 rises for 600-800 years after it has cooled.
It's true that CO2 continues to rise after it has STOPPED WARMING. It is not clear that CO2 continues to rise for 600-800 years after it has STARTED COOLING. The warming/cooling periods involved last thousands of years. These are slow pocesses. The general pattern is as follows:
Temps rise CO2 levels rise Temps hit peak and plateau CO2 levels hit peak ~800 years later and plateau Temps start to fall CO2 starts to fall .... and so on Thats 800 years of no warming in the presence of increasing levels of CO2 and 800 years of cooling in the presence of high CO2 levels. The plateau idea as an absolute is highly unlikely. Plateaus in nature tend to be relatively unrounded, not unrounded tops. Further the Appalachain mountains are considerably more plateau-like in appearance than younger mountain ranges like the Rocky Mountains or Sierra Nevada. A plateau in relative appearance may have been arrived at via some diffusion process that seeks a level common to layers nearby. I get the need for you to think skeptics think like you as it is not convenient to think to much on these topics.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 11, 2010 16:06:06 GMT
GLC: Every graph I have seen indicates that co2 continues to rise after it has started cooling. If you know of a graph or paper that shows differently, I am all ears.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 11, 2010 17:19:55 GMT
GLC: Every graph I have seen indicates that co2 continues to rise after it has started cooling. If you know of a graph or paper that shows differently, I am all ears.
Show me one.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 11, 2010 17:41:36 GMT
Thus it should be pretty easy to understand how the diffusion of gases in ice cores would still leave traces of their existence and perhaps some of the coarser details of relative size(otherwise the scientists who claim to find gases in icecores are lying) but err on their interpretation of their absolute levels (a much more likely scenario as an alternative to conspiracy to defraud)
As usual you indulge in wild speculation as to why the data fails to support your pet theories. Either the ice core data is reliable or it isn't. The fact that the low concentrations in the glacial periods stand out so starkly suggest that periods of much higher concentrations would also show up.
Can you tell me why that might be? Why are the glacial/interglacial periods so clearly defined by CO2 changes of ~100 ppm. Yet no other period in the ice core data shows the current levels of CO2 over the past 400,000 years. You are kind of an all or nothing type thinker in a gray world. Not a very effective approach to either thinking or argument. One would think the answer apparent.
Whereas you simply don't think. Have you read the Calder quote by the way.
A few more things:
Thats 800 years of no warming in the presence of increasing levels of CO2 and 800 years of cooling in the presence of high CO2 levels.
No it isn't. You don't understand how it works and I'm not sure I can go to the trouble of explaining it. But you seem to support the WUWT post so let's look at his model equation again
CO2n = CO2n-1 + 0.22 * (Tn + 0.58)
where n refers to month(n) and T is SST anomaly
So according to this equation CO2 responds immediately to the temperature anomaly for the month.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 11, 2010 20:35:44 GMT
The ice core data must be very reliable in order to ascertain a lag of a few hundred years. The lag was derived by close analysis of the ice core derived temperature and co2 data. Call into question that temperature and co2 data and you must also call into question the analysis that established the lag.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 11, 2010 23:21:33 GMT
The ice core data must be very reliable in order to ascertain a lag of a few hundred years. The lag was derived by close analysis of the ice core derived temperature and co2 data. Call into question that temperature and co2 data and you must also call into question the analysis that established the lag. I call both into question. I don't believe we have reliable proxies for past climate.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2010 0:26:13 GMT
Thus it should be pretty easy to understand how the diffusion of gases in ice cores would still leave traces of their existence and perhaps some of the coarser details of relative size(otherwise the scientists who claim to find gases in icecores are lying) but err on their interpretation of their absolute levels (a much more likely scenario as an alternative to conspiracy to defraud)As usual you indulge in wild speculation as to why the data fails to support your pet theories. Either the ice core data is reliable or it isn't. The fact that the low concentrations in the glacial periods stand out so starkly suggest that periods of much higher concentrations would also show up. You are like one of those people that knock on my door every once in a while that say every word of the Bible is fact and the word of God. My opinion is the Bible contains many important lessons but it was written by the hand of men who may have been inspired by God but are imperfect like God. So maybe you should explain again why I should take the lessons taught in the Bible with an eye to their good intent, moral truthfulness, and also believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale and after running around in the whales belly for a period of time emerged unscathed. What I would expect in icecore data would be the filling of the valleys with gases from the peaks making the valley floors higher and the peaks lower, all the while obscuring shorter term variability. Such a view is consistent with considerably higher sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 to temperature variation than suggested by the ice core data and in reality the valleys were deeper, the peaks higher, and along the way there was much more variation in the multi-centennial data that has totally washed away. And you sit there and suggest the data is sacrosanct without a shred of validation. The truth is either of us could be right. To that end I am willing to establish a wide zone of uncertainty and as long as the theories you build on that are consistent with the entire zone and don't speculate beyond that I am OK with that. Can you tell me why that might be? Why are the glacial/interglacial periods so clearly defined by CO2 changes of ~100 ppm. Yet no other period in the ice core data shows the current levels of CO2 over the past 400,000 years. The current period has not been subjected to long term corrosive forces. Its a completely plausible explanation that can only be eliminated by time or confirming proxies. The alternative is to take a guess, which of course is fine as long as you don't use your opinion to take the freedom's of others away. Thats 800 years of no warming in the presence of increasing levels of CO2 and 800 years of cooling in the presence of high CO2 levels. No it isn't. You don't understand how it works and I'm not sure I can go to the trouble of explaining it. I have to admit I would be too embarrassed to try that myself. But you seem to support the WUWT post so let's look at his model equation again
CO2n = CO2n-1 + 0.22 * (Tn + 0.58)
where n refers to month(n) and T is SST anomaly
So according to this equation CO2 responds immediately to the temperature anomaly for the month. Sorry its not due to the equation that CO2 responds immediately to temperature. . . . .it is the CO2 record following the temperature record up every peak and down every valley that demonstrates it is responding to change in temperature.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2010 0:51:14 GMT
For all those who are still confused by the magnitude of the CO2 response to temperature (~20ppm per deg C). This is from Nigel Calder (co-author of 'The Chilling Stars') The implication is that the CO2 thermometer is not the whole story. Man-made emissions must have contributed to the increase of the past 100 years. How significant that has been as a driver of the temperature increase is another question entirely. From calderup.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/co2-thermometer/Oh, I agree! The AGW contribution is represented in the atmosphere via the carbon 14 testing at 4%. That 4% represents the anthropogenic portion of CO2 in the atmosphere that has not gone into the carbon sink or the thermohaline currents to the bottom of the ocean. It seems apparent that the remaining anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere either did not wash out with the water cycle at all or of the co2 that did obviously wash out some small portion was sent back into the atmosphere by some process. Maybe through a cycle of being absorbed by a plant the plant rotting and reemitting it (though what is rotting would have to have less than 4% anthropogenic sourced carbon) or maybe it washed out and mixed with warm ocean water and got sent back into the atmosphere via Henry's law as the surface waters fluctuated. But again that stuff has to be 4% or less too. But the bottom line is it appears most that washes out joins some mysterious huge carbon sink having a completely unknown fate. At any rate there is little evidence we will see it for another thousand years if ever (assuming it doesn't become a carbonate rock in the bottom of the ocean for a future cement factory raw material). If it makes you feel better maybe it went to visit with the missing heat LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2010 1:08:36 GMT
The ice core data must be very reliable in order to ascertain a lag of a few hundred years. The lag was derived by close analysis of the ice core derived temperature and co2 data. Call into question that temperature and co2 data and you must also call into question the analysis that established the lag. Why is that Socold. To obscure the time record entire layers of ice would have to diffuse as opposed to just the gases in the air bubbles. If that is the case the lags would be greater not shorter. The nice thing about mountains is they are really big so extensive long term erosion is very apparent when you observe it. Microscopic bubbles of air containing .00002 parts co2 relative to other gases is hard to see period. In fact without ice ages of long duration its likely you would see nothing and you couldn't even observe delays. And I agree these observations were made as carefully as possible. But certain things just are not observable, when they are observable, you go Eureka!! What you don't see you have to be more careful with. I mean since all the glaciers and icesheets in the world have been melting for the past 200 years and CO2 has only been carefully measured for 50 years where do you even go to do tests? Lets face it it is probably hard to find an icecore anywhere that has an intact 200 year warm period.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 12, 2010 8:55:14 GMT
Sorry its not due to the equation that CO2 responds immediately to temperature. . . . .it is the CO2 record following the temperature record up every peak and down every valley that demonstrates it is responding to change in temperature.
Which it does immediately - within a matter of hours, days, weeks and months - depending on location and size of area covered. It does not take 800 years before there is a CO2 response. The 800 year lag is due to a specific reason (we'll get to it eventually).
|
|