|
Post by glc on Jun 12, 2010 9:28:21 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. You're beginning to sound deranged. Either that or you just don;t know when to stop digging when you're in a hole. Pretty much every reputable scientist (AGW and Sceptic) accepts that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is predominantly due to fossil fuel burning. The evidence for this is considerable. You disagree with this. But like everyone else in your position you have no credible reasons. You use 'diffusion' in an attempt to debunk the ice core data. You have no idea what the rate of diffusion might be (all evidence suggests it's low), but are happy to use the glacial/interglacial periods to deduce that there is an ~800 year temp/CO2 lag. Does diffusiion apply to the entire ice core record or just the bits you don't like. If the Roman Warm Period and MWP existed and it was as warm then as it is to-day then, if temperatures drove up CO2, CO2 concentration must have been close to to-days levels - Agree. So if diffusion is responsible for the flat record, it must have eliminated a ~100 ppm rise in CO2 less than 1000 years ago. How come the glacial/intrerglacial periods haven't been flattened. How is it we see still see the clearly defined rises and falls in the record.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2010 14:50:44 GMT
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. You're beginning to sound deranged. Either that or you just don;t know when to stop digging when you're in a hole. So we have reached the ad hominem point in the argument. Typical! Pretty much every reputable scientist (AGW and Sceptic) accepts that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is predominantly due to fossil fuel burning. The evidence for this is considerable. And the appeal to authority with vague references to evidence. You disagree with this. But like everyone else in your position you have no credible reasons. You use 'diffusion' in an attempt to debunk the ice core data. Science is a process of hypothesis and confirmation. Confirmation is missing thus there is no science to debunk, it is not my responsibility to provide confirmation of your belief all I am doing is pointing out normal problems, reefs if you will, that most scientific hypotheses throughout history have found themselves wrecked upon. The very few scientific hypotheses that turn out to be truth have found the path through these reefs. AGW is not there yet. . . .which is consistent even with the opinion of the Father of Global Warming Dr Revelle. Nothing significant has been established since he passed away, the same questions, the same doubts remain. You have no idea what the rate of diffusion might be (all evidence suggests it's low), but are happy to use the glacial/interglacial periods to deduce that there is an ~800 year temp/CO2 lag. The response of climate scientists to this issue has not been confirmation but instead suggestions that despite the truth of causation of increases in CO2 by increasing temperature that the reverse is also true that CO2 also causes increases in temperature. Further by virtue of observation we can observe the response of CO2 to changes in temperature at least the initial change which is strong and robust. The remainder of the theory of CO2 continuing to increase for large periods of time in response to temperature change is an identical process to what warmists claim is the fate of the missing heat. . . .except that physical mechanisms of transport of CO2 to the bottom of the ocean exist without countervailing forces that heat is exposed to (bouyancy of warm water relative to cold water) and thus is more likely for CO2 to travel that path and reemerge many years later than for heat to do so. Does diffusiion apply to the entire ice core record or just the bits you don't like. If the Roman Warm Period and MWP existed and it was as warm then as it is to-day then, if temperatures drove up CO2, CO2 concentration must have been close to to-days levels - Agree. So if diffusion is responsible for the flat record, it must have eliminated a ~100 ppm rise in CO2 less than 1000 years ago.Well there is a process by which the parts you deny existing can disappear and its called melting. It is also possible the carbon sequesterization process that produces lags (maybe we are now just seeing the lag portion of the MWP) may not be seen in temperature fluctuations of less than a 1,000 years periodicity and instead it laps back harmonically to increase natural variations all the while melting the ice evidence of its current existance leaving little trace of its coming and going unless you look a lot more extensively than we have for it. If its any consolation such a harmonic effect might be actually caused by a gentle forcing towards warming from increasing CO2. (it would have to be gentle as the current theory it is now being accounted for as all the warming) I haven't seen any science to eliminate that possibility as a detailed and robust analysis of the fate of gases in icecores seems absent from this discussion whether in recent history or the deep past. I think that is a proposition the proposer of accurate readings of the past needs to provide. How come the glacial/intrerglacial periods haven't been flattened. How is it we see still see the clearly defined rises and falls in the record. Same answer here as above with the observation that during periods of warmth no new permanent ice may form and as has been noted in our glacial record, each years snow melts back and exposes old ice for additional melting. The net result of this would be a dramatic thinning of warm periods in the ice records to the extent that hundreds of years could have melted away, perhaps all of it or sufficient amounts of it that it might take hundreds and hundreds of ice cores to find any of it in some protected crevice somewhere like fossil hunting. You don't find T-Rexs very fast by randomly digging holes and there are more clues of where to dig for a T-Rex than there is for finding a spot in the flat and extensive reaches of the Arctic that might harbor unmelted ice from a warm period. Usually all the ice melts along with some of the old ice. At any rate any remainder, if found, could be contained in such narrow bands of ice that these bands would be more vulnerable to diffusion with lower content bands due to an accelerated slope leaving perhaps only gentle rises (like much of the Appalachians) That may be why previous interglacials tend to show sharp peaks during relatively warm periods and wide valleys at the depths of ice ages. Seems improbable that would form naturally without countervailing erosive forces via an orbit variation. It may well have thrown a lot of icecore assumptions out of whack or require literally hundreds of dating procedures to even properly date layers in an icecore. Yet responses to these questions are never met with truckloads of evidence they are always met with a picture of the smiling face of Lonnie Thompson lording over a 10foot column of ice and a press release lacking in detail. When challenged on the topic there are always vague references to paywall science and code rings that only enable scientists to understand the information so there is no sense in reproducing it for laymen. Plus all those details might show uncertainty and confuse the public anyway. Better to rely upon statements of authority and simply call anybody asking for evidence a flat earth denier. Perhaps a 100,000 years from now the ice record of the Holocene will more resemble the Eemian and who knows what the remaining ice will read as? I mean this is why "confirmation" is important and the proponents in this forum can't deliver. Apparently neither can the scientists at the middle of the debate as they also tend to run to ad hominems and appeals to authority as opposed to carefully offering evidence to plug apparent weaknesses in the science. Like I said Dr Roger Revelle himself has pointed out that confirmation was lacking and conclusions are premature and everybody's responses remain consistent with that. Another telling thing is you wrote that entire post and offered zilch as evidence that anything I said was wrong. I think that sums up the entire debate rather nicely, namely that debate is not going to happen and you will use ad hominems and appeals to authority only until the cows come home after the barn door was left open.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 12, 2010 17:21:45 GMT
Well there is a process by which the parts you deny existing can disappear and its called melting. It is also possible the carbon sequesterization process that produces lags (maybe we are now just seeing the lag portion of the MWP) may not be seen in temperature fluctuations of less than a 1,000 years periodicity and instead it laps back Some points here. 1. You clearly don't understand anything about the lag. We wouldn't get a response to the MWP now because we have had colder periods since and so there is no need for the system to try to establish new equlilibrium (temp and CO2). 2. You forget about the Roman warm period which was 2000 years ago. No sign of it 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago .... or any time. 3. Nothing explains the current increases. 4. There are at least NINE separate ice core records. Incredibly (and unbelievably) it seems that whatever problems they have they all experience then (melting, diffusion) at EXACTLY the same time and to EXACTLY the same degree. See wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mauna_loa_ice_core_co2_1000_2010.jpg One ice core may dodgy, two is possible, but when 9 are all saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2010 17:29:26 GMT
glc: You are now getting to the crux of the matter. We know that part of the current increase is based on fossil fuel burning. The rest of the increase?.....who knows. It is happening, that we can ascertain. By looking at crustaceans, it would also appear that co2 has been higher in the recent past. Some crustaceans respond very positively to a lower ph level. That would indicate that their current environment is not as condusive to full potential as an environment in the recent past. While evolution is slow, it isn't that slow. From studies, about 1/2 the crustaceans benifit from a lower ph and about 1/2 benifit from a higher ph. Does that tell us that we have reached the mid-point of the average co2 level of the recent past?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 12, 2010 20:16:42 GMT
1. You clearly don't understand anything about the lag. We wouldn't get a response to the MWP now because we have had colder periods since and so there is no need for the system to try to establish new equlilibrium (temp and CO2). You are looking at a single cause for long term variations. What if the sun varies and the orbit varies and our shielding varies (clouds, atmospheric thickness, etc)? All to different processes on top of some internal processes. In that case equilibrium is a constantly moving target and the waves that are created are like ocean waves that vary considerably just in the period of an hour despite the hour showing virtually nil atmospheric variation. 2. You forget about the Roman warm period which was 2000 years ago. No sign of it 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago .... or any time. 3. Nothing explains the current increases. 4. There are at least NINE separate ice core records. Incredibly (and unbelievably) it seems that whatever problems they have they all experience then (melting, diffusion) at EXACTLY the same time and to EXACTLY the same degree. See Sampling is obviously something you don't do. If records are melting away due to natural variations of temperatures at a given level of CO2, mostly likely it would be rare to find a core that didn't melt away. If the ice core records are identical that suggests they all lost exactly the same records over time. I doubt that but that probably says a lot about how coarse-grained they are that they appear to be identical. We also know that a 100 years ago the NW passage was ice free sufficiently to transit it despite CO2 levels being a 100 points lower. It would be a mistake to assume that in the future if they drop a 100 points again that the ice would not melt away again even if you can find some that are 50 years old today or even maybe 150 years old, its warm decade in the sun just hasn't come yet. Bottom line is you cannot just appeal to a sample of nine you have to show evidence that the icecores have all the records. In fact I think the argument they all are identical is nonsense as we know regional variations exist. Why else is the best measured continent of the world (temperature wise) is not showing warming over the warm period of the 30'and 40's when other places are? I could use any argument used to argue that to argue the temperature records in the other parts of the world that show warming from the 30/40's to the present are mistaken due to whatever cause WWII, poor records management, or insufficient samples etc. Auditors run into this all the time you need to understand natural variation before you can understand anthropogenic variation. Suggesting that all the samples show the same information suggests that the samples are so uniformly badly eroded that all regional and short term variations we do know that exists have disappeared from the record and that all that remains are the super long term accumulations of ice that overrides all interim centennial cycles. And if all those centennial cycles are indeed melting way one can easily surmise the entire interglacial optimums also wore down to some minimum point back to the last cool period where CO2 levels retreated to the levels that everybody considers to be the handle of the Co2 hockey stick and when the ice melted sufficiently so some guy could pilot the first boat through the NW passage. Now that doesn't mean there are not ice core records that resolves this. It is possible some geologic feature protected ice that fell during a warm period, some cold sheltered spot where it doesn't get warm and the ice did not melt. But those are perhaps rare conditions that could be as rare as a T-Rex and if you can reliably find a T-Rex every 9 holes you dig I want you picking numbers for me in the State Lottery. The bottom line here is just saying that a sample of two or nine is sufficient falls far short of proving it. And evidence of this nature seems unavailable to AGW advocates who repeatedly instead just either make flat unsupported statements built on false logic and/or embellish it with ad hominems and refusals to get into the weeds of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on Jun 13, 2010 1:15:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2010 9:11:18 GMT
If records are melting away due to natural variations of temperatures at a given level of CO2, mostly likely it would be rare to find a core that didn't melt away
Explain about this melting. Note that most of these cores are from Antarctica. When was inner antarctica melting?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2010 9:52:34 GMT
Just getting back to the thread of CO2 lagging temperature and also natural variation of CO2
www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/incr....0%A6or-natural/
And here's a useful graph. I wonder what rabbit will be pulled out of the realclimate hatI don't think realclimate need to pull any rabbit out of a hat. I'm bit surprised by Roy Spencer's post as it just seems to regurgitate the rate of CO2 increase v temperature issue. To be fair, Spencer thinking is a bit more sophisticated than that seen in the recent WUWT post on the same topic. Right - lets be clear about this. There is considerable variability in year-to-year CO2 increases which is almost certainly due to temperature. WE KNOW THIS!!! It is the reason that the increase in an El Nino year (e.g. 1998) is greater than in a La Nina year (e.g. 1999). SST moderate the CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere. However we are still getting an underlying trend which is moving upwards (Spencer does seem to acknowledge this and tries to address it - but I think he's wrong). I posted the following analogy for CO2 growth recently. Imagine driving a car on a long journey. At the start of the journey you travel at 50 mph. Later, though, then you come across traffic conditions which forces you to drive at 20mph. You have the same car, same engine, same driver, but the rate at which you cover the distance has decreased. But the car is still moving forward. This is like the CO2/temp relationship. Fossil fuel emissions are the engine which drives the CO2 level onward. Temperature can be related to the traffic conditions whch determine how fast the CO2 levels rise. Just as the traffic conditions could get so bad that the car is forced to stop, it's possible that oceans become so cold that CO2 stops rising (in the atmosphere). That hasn't happened in more than 50 years though .
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on Jun 13, 2010 10:06:19 GMT
1. You clearly don't understand anything about the lag. We wouldn't get a response to the MWP now because we have had colder periods since and so there is no need for the system to try to establish new equlilibrium (temp and CO2). You are looking at a single cause for long term variations. What if the sun varies and the orbit varies and our shielding varies (clouds, atmospheric thickness, etc)? All to different processes on top of some internal processes. In that case equilibrium is a constantly moving target and the waves that are created are like ocean waves that vary considerably just in the period of an hour despite the hour showing virtually nil atmospheric variation. 2. You forget about the Roman warm period which was 2000 years ago. No sign of it 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago .... or any time. 3. Nothing explains the current increases. 4. There are at least NINE separate ice core records. Incredibly (and unbelievably) it seems that whatever problems they have they all experience then (melting, diffusion) at EXACTLY the same time and to EXACTLY the same degree. See Sampling is obviously something you don't do. If records are melting away due to natural variations of temperatures at a given level of CO2, mostly likely it would be rare to find a core that didn't melt away. If the ice core records are identical that suggests they all lost exactly the same records over time. I doubt that but that probably says a lot about how coarse-grained they are that they appear to be identical. We also know that a 100 years ago the NW passage was ice free sufficiently to transit it despite CO2 levels being a 100 points lower. It would be a mistake to assume that in the future if they drop a 100 points again that the ice would not melt away again even if you can find some that are 50 years old today or even maybe 150 years old, its warm decade in the sun just hasn't come yet. Bottom line is you cannot just appeal to a sample of nine you have to show evidence that the icecores have all the records. In fact I think the argument they all are identical is nonsense as we know regional variations exist. Why else is the best measured continent of the world (temperature wise) is not showing warming over the warm period of the 30'and 40's when other places are? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2010 10:51:49 GMT
Icefisher is correct, they are not all identical. While ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica definitely follow the same trend, they are not in true synchronism either chrologically or in value. The graphs from GRIP and Vostok that I previously posted on this thread demonstrate that quite clearly.
I would expect anyone who accepts the accuracy of the ice core record, to believe the data from them, and not just be selective in what they use.
I post the graphs again in the one document for ease of comparison. Note the rise in atmospheric CO2 following the end of the little ice age. Once again CO2 lagging temp. Isn't it beautiful how consistent that is over almost all time periods
Right - I have your graphs in front of me. One for the arctic and one for the antarctic. Please tell me what this is supposed to show. Before you do - consider the points you make very carefully.
Oh ... and let me remind you what my main points were.
1. CO2 from all ice core data (all regions) is consistent. 2. There is no spike in CO2 from either the Roman Warm Period or the MWP - yet they are supposed to be warmer than to-day.
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on Jun 13, 2010 11:35:33 GMT
Icefisher is correct, they are not all identical. While ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica definitely follow the same trend, they are not in true synchronism either chrologically or in value. The graphs from GRIP and Vostok that I previously posted on this thread demonstrate that quite clearly.
I would expect anyone who accepts the accuracy of the ice core record, to believe the data from them, and not just be selective in what they use.
I post the graphs again in the one document for ease of comparison. Note the rise in atmospheric CO2 following the end of the little ice age. Once again CO2 lagging temp. Isn't it beautiful how consistent that is over almost all time periodsRight - I have your graphs in front of me. One for the arctic and one for the antarctic. Please tell me what this is supposed to show. Before you do - consider the points you make very carefully. Oh ... and let me remind you what my main points were. 1. CO2 from all ice core data (all regions) is consistent. 2. There is no spike in CO2 from either the Roman Warm Period or the MWP - yet they are supposed to be warmer than to-day. If you have trouble working out what the graphs demonstrate there is no point in trying to fill in the blanks. As far as no spike there is a trend and a lagging one for CO2.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 13, 2010 12:15:59 GMT
If you have trouble working out what the graphs demonstrate there is no point in trying to fill in the blanks. As far as no spike there is a trend and a lagging one for CO2.
I have no trouble working out what the graphs represent. You appear to have some trouble in understanding what the main points of this discussion are.
I claim that the CO2 concentrations in all 9 ice core records is consistent. You post 2 graphs showing ice records from locations which are thousands of miles apart. The CO2 concentrations are within a few ppm of each other. This shows you and icefisher are wrong and I am right.
As far ar the lag is concerned we'll come to that later. Suffice to say - you are wrong. The recent rise in CO2 clearly starts before the temperature rise (see arctic plot).
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 13, 2010 12:37:58 GMT
1- The ice cores are consistently showing the same error bars. as well. 2- so you claim. But are you clearing your belief in the MWP with Mann & pals? When was the MWP again, btw?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 13, 2010 12:39:53 GMT
The confusion comes from the different processes. From the ice cores...we can tell that the oceans are likely not outgassing significantly. That process takes hundreds of years (hence the 600-2000 year lag in the ice core record). Outgassing takes so long because of the amount of time it takes for deep ocean mixing to allow temperature increases throughout the oceans (not JUST at the surface).
Smaller variations, especially with us changing the amount of CO2 in the air) occur on the short term because of temperature variations, rainfall and ocean mixing. If the cold period involves greater deep ocean mixing and higher rainfall...it will likely put a bit of a dent in CO2 increases. It probably won't stop them though.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 13, 2010 15:03:46 GMT
If records are melting away due to natural variations of temperatures at a given level of CO2, mostly likely it would be rare to find a core that didn't melt awayExplain about this melting. Note that most of these cores are from Antarctica. When was inner antarctica melting? LOL! I bet you have an icecore that has that answer. ROTFLMAO! Can you give us one of those footprint diagrams of the steps you guys take in your dance around the holy icecore?
|
|