Poll of what you think climate sensitivity is.

[nautonnier]

May 17, 2010 16:15:58 GMT steve said:

I'm looking at a level even simpler than that. CO2 is rising very steadily despite the processes you describe and your reference to Henry's law. How come?

The ocean temperatures have been increasing since the LIA and the CO2 balance has not been reached. It is continually being washed from the atmosphere, but will outgas if the surface water is warm enough.

If the SST's stop rising or even drop as the ARGO floats appear to be reporting - then I would expect after a lag the CO2 increase will also level and then drop.

The very steadiness of the rise should be a clue that it is not variable industrial processes that are causing the rise in CO2.

CO2 levels are probably more a feedback than a cause of the warming.

nautonnier, you have given away the game.

You've gone along with the story that CO2 levels can't reach 560ppm and cited Henry's law in support.

You forgot to point out that you are entirely happy with the idea that CO2 has risen significantly, purely due to a bit of (natural?) warming.

Since the earth has in the past been warmer than now then someone who really believed what you are saying would not bother with Henry's law and merely state that should temperatures warm another degree or so, CO2 will reach 560ppm, but CO2 has nothing to do with it, and probably it won't happen.

But you don't believe what you are saying, do you?

I expect that after a lag you will change your story.

Steve, you are approaching this in a very combative way. I have no 'game'. However, I do believe that the simplistic and linear 'we are adding X CO₂ per year therefore it will be x * 10 in ten year's time' exhibits a misunderstanding of natural processes. Absorption of CO₂ in cloud droplets and rain will be rapid and 'scrub' the atmosphere. The CO₂ will then out-gas from a warm surface if the vapor pressure is low enough. It is definitely NOT a linear process the absorption will increase as vapor pressure increases.

The 'Vostock proxies' are almost certainly incorrect as an indicator of global CO₂ and the levels of CO₂ are perhaps more stable than are claimed by the AGW proponents (not that I am accusing anyone of hiding declines in proxy metrics - but once bitten twice shy.) I think that there is nothing exceptional about the current levels of CO₂ they may even be lower than holocene normal and that they could be slowly climbing to the balance expected from Henry's law as the ocean temperatures increase. How long that takes - who knows?

I realize that this is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis so will be attacked - <shrug> - but I see nothing proven on CO₂ levels being exceptional apart from unsupported conjectures.

[socold]

"The 'Vostock proxies' are almost certainly incorrect as an indicator of global CO2"

There goes the co2 lags temperature by 800 years argument then...

[sentient]

May 18, 2010 23:00:10 GMT socold said:

"The 'Vostock proxies' are almost certainly incorrect as an indicator of global CO2"

There goes the co2 lags temperature by 800 years argument then...

Careful socold, you are on some very "thin ice" here. Very thin indeed.

Consider for a moment that CO2 leads temperature for the major blacial/interglacial transition, as well as for D-O cycles. This scenario would add considerable weight to the CO2 forces climate change argument.

We can certainly limit anthropogenic emissions of this heathen devil gas, but now we have a much more stolid enemy to contend with. A regular, unidentified surge of CO2 that is not anthropogenic that can cause sea level swings of 400 feet and 20C on the major 100kyr transitions and up to 16C (think D-O 19), and 8-10C on average every 1500 or so years (with attendant 30 or so meters of sea level shift).

There now. You have your work cut out for you.

[Pooh]

May 18, 2010 8:23:42 GMT steve said:

Pooh,
Problems have been found in the Lindzen paper. For example, by changing the periods analysed by as little as one month, the results change in a way that they agree with the models. And they get some of their maths wrong. The authors of the critical paper summarised their results here:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

Thank you, Steve. I had not noted this commentary (Fasullo, Trenberth and O’Dell) until you called my attention to it. I will take it under advisement since Trenberth is involved. There are at least 7 other related articles not including Spencer.

(What struck me is that both Spencer and Lindzen/Choi came up with the same sign for net feedback, and both used satellite data rather than surface stations.)

[steve]

Pooh, I understand that Spencer also disagreed with Lindzen's analysis. I don't know what the grounds were though.

It should be pretty easy to validate the Trenberth analysis of Lindzen's end-points, for example, as other than the end-point choices, the methodology is the same. It would also be pretty easy to check Trenberth's claim that the models Lindzen compared with did not include Pinatubo, so the impact of Pinatubo's aerosols on SW radiation was an important difference between the models and reality.

Judith Curry is also sceptical of Lindzen's paper and has expressed no particular objections to Trenberth's analysis (though some think Curry is a stooge ).

[goldbuster1]

without reading any post, I can testify that hunter, socold and steve voted that Man-Made volcanic CO2 will affect climate.

Now who else is claiming they are skeptics...

Operation CO2 needs believing or $