Posted on 12/24/2009 10:21:25 PM PST by cogitator
I found this on one of the blogs I read ( The Energy Collective). Richard Alley is a noted glaciologist, at Penn State, peripherally associated with Michael Mann. Feel free to ignore this if that bugs you. In the lecture, he explains how CO2 is linked to climate throughout paleohistory -- feel free to ignore that if it bugs you, too. The science is true if it bugs you or not. He pokes fun of climate change skeptics -- another reason to ignore this.
I.e., it will take people with a real interest in the subject, who don't care about the side issues, to watch this and gain a better understanding of the issue. If you aren't one of those people, don't bother.
I will not respond to any comments about this, directed to me or not. I'm presenting it for the benefit of FreeRepublic denizens who want to get in on the ground floor and understand the relationship between CO2 and climate.
The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Climate History
Part of this will be featured in my upcoming (still months away) blog.
here’s a response by a poster showing refuting claims wh9ch point out how temps rise first, then CO2 after a long period on another site that shows icecore readings show a significant lag between onset of warming, and CO2 rises, as well as points out, like your graph did, that temps also FALL even htough CO2 remains high- Basically, warming trends release CO2 trapped in cold oceans, and htings like El Nina als trigger releases of CO2 (La and El nina events are also discovered preindustrial age, and were infact worse than we’ve seen in recent years)
As well, let’s not forget that other planets ARE experiencing the very same type cyclical warmign and cooling trends- all WITHOUT and input of CO2 from man- and let’s also not forget, that these other planets are warmign and cooling according to the sun’s sunspots prevelence
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
12 December 2004 at 2:12 PM
May I disagree with this article?
The correlation between CO2 and temperature in the pre-industrial 420,000 years, according to the Vostok ice core is surprisingly linear (some 8 ppmv for 1°C, see: http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/correlation.html ) and includes shorter (~800 years) for glacial-interglacial transitions and longer (up to thousands of years) lags for CO2 vs. temperature for interglacial-glacial transitions. See e.g. the previous interglacial at: http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/co2_temp_ice.html
While the fast glacial-interglacial transitions may hide which leads what and to what extent, the much slower (depending of the length of the interglacial) interglacial-glacial transitions make it clear. When the temperature decreases (7°C), CO2 levels remain high. When CO2 levels fall (some 50 ppmv), there is no measurable effect on temperature at all. This contradicts the possibility that CO2 plays an important role in the onset of both glaciations and deglaciations.
Response The above statement is incorrect. The correlation being discussed is between CO2 and deuterium/hydrogen isotope ratios in snow (as archived in an ice core), an imperfect measure of temperature. It has been shown that when the deuterium/hydrogen ratios are corrected for the influence of temperature changes at the ocean surface (from which the water that fell as snow originally evaporated), the correlation becomes even more remarkable, and the apparent drop in temperature thousands of years before the drop in CO2 disappears. See Cuffey and Vimeux, Science, 2002.
Further, even if we assume that the average of current climate models is right, the temperature increase from a CO2 doubling is around 3°C, or ~1°C for a 100 ppmv rise. Which is 1/10th of the >10°C rise seen in the last deglaciation.
Moreover, the Taylor Dome ice core, also reveales a lag of 1200 +/- 700 years between CO2 and temperature on shortes time scales (D-O events). See: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf
Rapid temperature swings like the end of the Younger Dryas (probably less than a few decades) are followed by CO2 changes.
Even the past 1,000 years, showed a lag of ~50 years of CO2 vs. temperature for the Law Dome ice core, but the temperature data disappeared from the Internet…
And since the industrial revolution, sea surface temperature changes, like El Niño, induce peaks in the CO2 increase rate, some 6 months after the onset of the event…
Thus all together, all historic data point to a lag of CO2 after temperature changes, without much influence of CO2 on temperature when that happens…”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Just onem ore hting I want to point out- m,an’s contribution to the TOTAL CO2 levels in atmosphere is only .2%- the REST of the TOTAL amount of CO2 is purely natural- It’s absolutely assinien to claim that a .2% (for hte whole ‘industrial age) contribution of CO2 by man is responsible for the changing our climate to the degrees that the climate has been hcanging back and forth since time began
On another forum I had someoen try to claim that the .2% contribution by man was ‘the straw that broke hte camel’s back’ they described our measly contribution as a glass that was full to the brim, then man came along and added our piddly .2% and walla- all hell suppsoedly broke loose cliamte wise!
That kind of reasoning was so far off base, it was astonishing that someoen woudl even attempt to tryto defend the aghenda that ‘man is to blame for global warming’.
IF Greenhouse gases were infact that reason for warming, then 99.8% of all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere was due to NATURAL causes, and that 99.8% should have had a VERY SERIOUS effect on climate IF our piddly .2% contributions are claimed to be so devestating- the 99.8% natural CO2 shoudl have caused our planet’s demise IF a mere .2% is supposed to be so catastrophic
IF CO2 levels are responsbile for warming, then we should have been on a steady warmign trend since we’ve consistently been producing more CO2 each year, but that is NOT what the charts show sicne the industrial age- it shows warmign AND cooling trends (which again, followed sun spot activity almost to a ‘T’), and i nthe last 100 years, we’ve had 2 warmign and cooling trends, DESPITE the fact that we’re now producing more CO2 than ever before
bottom line is our piddly .2% contribution of CO2 has no effect on nature’s cyclical wamrign trends- heck, even nature’s 99.8% contribution of CO2 doesn’t have an effect even worth mentioning- it’s really the heigth of arrogance to think that man’s piddly contribution is able to affect global climates one way or the other.
Here’s a pretyt good site which explains many variables that contribute to warming and cooling (Dust- Volcanic ash, glaciers, ocean displacement variation due to floor splits, Solar reflectivity etc etc http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
You're right. That's the whole point. The Earth's atmosphere a huge, mathematically chaotic, homeo-static system. It doesn't behave in a linear predictable way. 500 years of data - complete, well vetted data, would prove that we can't really create a model for the Earth's atmosphere.
Even if you could produce a duplicate earth in a perfectly identical orbit around a perfectly identical sun the measured results wouldn't be the same.
Note, I do believe that global warming is taking place. (I don't believe IN global warming. I only believe IN God, that Jesus Christ is my personal savior, music, love and old Mac Davis songs.) Global warming has been happening for the past 15,000 years, give or take. I just see no (zero, zip, zilch, keine, nichevo, nada) evidence that humans have very much to do with it. I just hope it continues because it's cold outside!
Merry Christmas!
What is in dispute is the amount of 'forcing' caused by a doubling of CO2. He admits this and argues for high 'sensitivity' based on weatherization rates but says nothing about CO2 uptake from other sources.
Altogether, not a compelling arguement.
Also, he asserts that orbital changes cause ice ages then, later, asserts that CO2 is the main cause of temperature changes which seems contradictory.
To get from here to climategate, one has to examine the AGW hypothesis as put forward by the UNIPCC which has been thoroughly debunked.
My internal alarm bells went off when he described how contradictory evidence is being systematically refuted which I read as saying they are doing to that data what they tried to do to the MWP and LIA.
The database consists of the “value added” product that has been quality controlled and adjusted to account for identified non-climatic influences. It is the station subset of this value-added product that we have released. Adjustments were only applied to a subset of the stations so in many cases the data provided are the underlying data minus any obviously erroneous values removed by quality control. The Met Office do not hold information as to adjustments that were applied and so cannot advise as to which stations are underlying data only and which contain adjustments.
They openly admit they can't tell which is the raw data and which is the data they cooked, or even how they cooked it.
This is by definition FRAUD.
STFU troll.
Some on the Hill have been fighting the AGW issues for years. With all the new how should we say surprise taking place their cause may become more effective. How effective, is yet to be seen. Zero and his advisors obviously will do their best to work through the EPA and other channels to royally screw us.
yeah, but what really bothers me is how quickly the public and conservative news stations drop the ball when the heat settles down a bit- When climategate broke, I thought ‘AT LAST- the TRUTH is finally out in the open where it CAN’T be ignored’, but as time went on, and as I saw th4e world leaders in copenhagen ignoring the scandal and goign right ahead with their fraud liek nothign had ever happened, I realized that we’re right back where we started- jkust a minority group with reams of evidence against AGW, and the media ignorign hte story- I’m convinced the whitehouse knew public interest was goign to die qndthat all they had todo was weather the storm and controversy until people began losing interest again- and that’s exactly what’s happening
So stinking frustrating- our ONLY hope is that htose in congress who have been battlign this issue will bring lawsuits- step it up to the point where it can no longer be ignored by hte mianstream media, and sue htose who have been tryign to scam us for so long now.
What about glaciers? Are they receding or not?
What about it? Glaciers melt during NATURAL CYCLICAL warming trends- it’s nothign new- glaciers have always melted when it gets warmer- the great lakes in the US were formed by mile thick glaciers that melted. The argument that glaciers are melting and therefore man must be to blame has NO scientific merrit- During the medieval period, glaciers melted and the land became prime grape growing l;and where once it was nothign but ice- What caused that melting? NATURAL CYCLICAL warmign trends (by the way- we’re goign into a long cooling trend again DESPITE the fact that we’re still producing record amounts of CO2- Again, CO2 does NOT cause warming- never has- it doesn’t even make the warming worse- and ocne again, we’re ONLY producing .2% CO2 compared to nature producing 99.2% CO2- to argue that our piddly contribution of CO2 is ‘causing glaciers to melt’ is again, a claim that has no scientific merrit
Cogitator,
Be sure to double-check Richard Alley’s assertions.
What are the CO2 estimates over the past 25 million years? (180 ppm to 380 ppm) What are the temperature estimates? (-5.0C to +4.0C) The doubling estimates do not work at this time scale nor any timescale in the historical climate.
Of course, Richard Alley never showed the math in that presentation. He just told you it is almost nailed.
I'm breaking silence because I don't know where you got your CO2 (atmospheric concentration) estimates. The first paper's pretty easy to read on this.
Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time (PDF)
Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene (abstract only)
You can get the data for these two papers at this link (along with others you might want)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
scroll down to the “Atmospheric Trace Gases” section and they are provided in Excel spreadsheet form and then one can reorganize it to plot CO2 versus time.
This one also has the CO2 numbers published in IPCC AR4.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ipcc2007/ipcc2007fig61top.xls
Sorry, should have mentioned you can ignore the Pedogenic Carbonates CO2 data since it is just a bunch of outliers including lots of 0’s.
cogitator was once a rather pleasant fellow; a bit too smug among his news-scraps as he buzzed about the room but lately he’s become a bit testy; all that coupon clipping and not a one for Valium, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.