Michelle Koutnik, of the University of Copenhagen's Center for Ice and Climate, prepares an Antarctic ice core for transport back to labs at Brigham Young University in Utah.
Image: NASA ICE
Scientists can study Earth’s climate as far back as 800,000 years by drilling core samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels is trapped in these specimens. Current polar records show an intimate connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature in the natural world. In essence, when one goes up, the other one follows.
There is, however, still a degree of uncertainty about which came first—a spike in temperature or CO2. Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. “The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”
Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.
The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.
Parrenin’s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.
“Our method takes into account more data and shows that the age difference in Antarctic temperature and CO2 levels is less than we previously thought,” Parrenin says. “I think this could help to change the tone of discussions about climate change.”
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentGreat to have an apparently reasonable resolution to this issue!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a 'denier', however, I had to chuckle at the statement:
"The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on," says Edward Brook of Oregon State University's College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. "They say, 'How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?'"
It's a shame this issue has produced so much polarization, but I'd expect any competent scientist to be skeptical of their conclusion when evidence indicates that the proposed cause lags its proposed effect! It's very good to have this issue reasonably resolved!
Lets see if I understand this... Right now, temperature is lagging CO2 (CO2 goes up and temperature follows). In the past, CO2 was lagging temperature (temperature goes up and CO2 follows suit). That could mean that before, carbon was being released into the atmosphere due to the permafrost melting and other reinforcing effects of the changing climate. Now however, the process is not natural because mankind is releasing the carbon into the atmosphere and forcing the temperature to change. Sounds to me like it is proof that climate change is being induced by human factors rather than the normal cycle of things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr am I mistaken....
"It's very good to have this issue reasonably resolved!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might be resolved, if it wasn't for that pesky bit about "Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years." So, even by the new method, the CO2 rise happened AFTER the temperature increase. Whether it's 1400 years or 200 doesn't matter, effect CAN'T follow cause.
But of course you understand, MadScientist72 (whoever you are), that there are orbital changes the Earth undergoes that can influence climate, causing it to warm, and that this initial warming can cause, in turn, an increase in atmospheric CO2, which demonstrably, in turn, causes further increases in warming, the positive feedback loop. So CO2 may not have initiated the warming, but it accelerated it once it got underway, corroborating the fact that atmospheric CO2 can, in fact, cause warming. Today we happen to be the source of excess CO2, which is serving as the initial trigger to the warming we observe. And the big danger is those positive feedback loops which could kick in and serve up some nasty surprises.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep saying this over and over again. We can't see the forest for all of the trees. We need to stop with all the CO2 nonsense and get on with cleaning up our air and water. We need to stop fiddling around with Cap and Trade and create a tax on carbon that supports the use of more renewable energy. I can track where carbon tax dollars go - I can't track the smoke we trade under a Cap and Trade scheme. What a dumb greedy way to fund a government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to fund both the study AND construction of wind, solar, geothermal, and bio-fuels using processes like those created by companies like Cool Planet Biofuels. We need to START having conversations about population MONITORING but not yet CONTROL. We need to start celebrating women with 2 or 3 kids instead of those with 5, 6 or 13.
Good heavens people did you know that we waste 70% of all the heat energy we create in a fossil fueled or nuclear power plant and we have hundreds of them. That is like going to the grocery store and buying $100 worth of food and then throwing away $70 worth when we get home. And where do you think all that waste heat goes? Did you also know that the heat being wasted from just our our building is capable of effecting weather patters more than a thousand miles away? Here is a link that should get your attention.
loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=13-P13-00006&segmentID=2
We have all heard what CO2 does at least 1000 times before and yet nothing changes. If you haven't yet asked yourself WHY then you don't have a very good understand of human nature. So in my no so humble opinion, all of this continuing CO2 talk is just a total waste of time and we need to get on with some SOLUTIONS. Solutions like:
1. Lighter and more efficient vehicles.
2. Smaller two passenger vehicles for urban areas
3. Continue to promote HYBRID and ELECTRIC vehicles.
4. Move our trucking fleet to Natural Gas NOW.
5. Implement a Carbon Tax and allow the government to only keep 10% of the proceeds from the tax. The governments ability to waste money boggles my mind.
6. Use the carbon tax to FIRST fund wind, solar, bio-fuels and other renewables research, development and construction. NEXT fund inter city or urban area mass transit using 2-4 passenger pods running overhead with point to point services. Rail lines never go where you want to go do they?
I am all finished listening to and reading Global Warming or Climate Change stuff. Its time to stop studying and talking and time to get to work.
That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
As demonstrated every day, in countless spectrophotometers, the agent causing the excitation of the CO2 molecule (e.g. it's heating) is the infrared photon. Which is to say the thermal radiation given off by all matter. Increase the concentration of an IR active gas in the presence of an appropriate IR source the gas gets hot. Cart follows horse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe posts by jtdwyer and MadScientist72 each illustrate a frequent flaw in anti-AGW arguments: failure to recognize (or admit?) that manmade burning of carbon fuels is presently the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2. This circumstance, which never existed before the Industrial Revolution, does indeed cause the rise in CO2 to precede the rise in temperature _now_, whether or not it did in the pre-industrial past!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no inversion of cause and effect. There does seem to be widespread anti-AGW blindness to our historically novel circumstances.
That is a very good point - the issue has not been entirely resolved by factoring the rate of gas diffusion in the ice pack. I had missed that - thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBillR's point re. the potential role reversal of cause/effect in the past (that in the past natural warming typically produced the release of co2 while, since the industrial revolution, increasing co2 levels (due to human incineration) are producing warmer temperatures) also seems to have some merit.
If all of the gas diffusion error has been eliminated from the ice core data and past warming increased atmospheric co2 and increasing atmospheric co2 does cause global warming then, in the past, temperatures should have increased again when co2 increased. The process in the past then should have been warming; lag; co2; warming; lag; co2... repeatedly until near-subsurface co2 (as a function of temperature) had all been released.
I suspect the variability of gas diffusion rates in ancient ice may make it difficult or impossible to precisely date embedded atmospheric gas, but additional research is warranted.
In the meantime, the issue has been significantly resolved, although it's interesting that if there is a 200 year lag in warming due to increasing co2 levels, it's been around 200 years since the industrial revolution. During the time, the human population has increased six-fold...
Your accusation is unfair and unfounded! My initial comment only addressed the discrepancy produced by gas dispersion as discussed in this article - I was not analyzing the root cause of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, I wrote my preceding comment, which DID NOT FAIL to "recognize (or admit?) that manmade burning of carbon fuels is presently the primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2" before I'd read your comment.
You don't need to worry about what my problems might or might not be - you don't have sufficient information to make that determination, and it's none of your business, thank you! Feel free to discuss your own problems - preferably somewhere else!
There is no doubt that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to more heat trapping, but this does not mean that every historical period of warming was initiated by an increase of CO2. Because of feedback effects, warmer temperatures will release more CO2 from ocean waters and cause more rapid breakdown of biological mass. So temperatures and CO2 levels should always rise together, regardless of the event that initiated the warming. I would not be surprised that some of the past events may have had other triggers, but the continuation of the warming was certainly assisted by the released CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the current case, it seems pretty clear that the initiating event was (and is)the CO2 being generated by human activities, and this must be the focus of remediation.
Keep in mind that the Earth's climate has an immense amount of thermal inertia as well, and according to current measurements, over 90% of the extra heat trapped by humanity's GHG emissions is going into the oceans. The top few meters of the ocean has more heat content than the entire atmosphere as well. The "time constant" of the climate system probably runs into the decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, when coming out of an "ice age", a lot of heat goes into melting glaciers and other ice at the margins of the polar ice pack instead of heating up the air and water. So, even though a lot of ice is retreating northward, there still remains a lot of water that basically sits at 0C for an extended period of time that still has the same CO2 solubility as it had during the "ice age". Having half the Earth's surface covered in reflective ice really tends to slow down the impact of orbital forcing too.
Temperature data is noisy, and to use only a small section of data leads to much uncertainty in the direction of the trend. If you regress only the past 17 years worth, the 95% confidence level on the direction of the trend includes both positive and negative slopes. So it is not statistically accurate to say that warming has stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe continue to set many more monthly heat records than cold records, with 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurring since 2000. Maybe it has temporarily slowed, but the long term trend is sharply upward, and expected to accelerate. Cherry-picking the data is not allowed- you must use all of it.
Read more here:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/no-global-warming-hasnt-stopped-121017.htm
Doesn't that beg the question of what caused the original temperature rise in the first place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really doesn't matter what sets the process in motion. Once it has become unstable, the reinforcing effects of the feedback cycles can accelerate the process. Increased atmospheric concentrations of methane, water vapor, and CO2 are a result of the warmer temperature, and all act to further destabilize it. CO2 is particularly bad since it lasts so long in the atmosphere. And the fact that we keep pumping billions of tons more into the atmosphere adds mightily to the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should amend my claim to say "It MIGHT not matter what starts the warming." We don't have enough info to claim that the feedback cycles are self-sustaining, regardless of the initial trigger. It might be that only certain combinations of conditions will lead to a large thermal shift. For example, a relatively large shift in CO2 level MIGHT be a requirement for the feedbacks to become self-sustaining. And there is a nonzero probability that negative feedbacks (e.g. more low-lying clouds?) might stabilize the warming at some point.We just don't know enough yet, and therein lies the danger of the global experiment we are performing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood. It's not as if you were trying to calmly persuade anyone. The rest of us are now free to read articles for their facts and tap our own over-educated minds for rational interpretations. We won't be pestering you any longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will note that my post that you refer to has been removed. Are you comfortable with the views of those who disagree with you being removed? What does it tell you about the suppression of information in what purports to be a science magazine? What I posted was a link to what the head of the IPCC had said during his recent tour of Australia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
This sentiment obviously does not apply to comments in SCIAM.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134
Further to this, all comments have been removed without explanation from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=1816-the-year-without-summer-excerpt&posted=1#comments
If commentators from all persuasions do not object to the way comments are being deleted, soon there will be no forum.
@Carlyle: I disagree with your interpretations of the data, and believe that you have been cherry-picking it to find the pieces that support your preordained opinions. I can live with that, because the overwhelming data are on the other side, and yours can be refuted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I do NOT believe that deletion of dissenting opinions furthers the cause of science or of public discussion, when those opinions are presented fairly and impersonally. It further polarizes the discussion, and gives the impression that climate scientists are trying to hide something. That's bad juju.
Thank you. Generally I find the comments more informative than the articles. I do like to challenge comentators & authors to substantiate their positions & though I sometimes comment on sites that are more closely aligned with my perspective, I much prefer forums offering a range of views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen commentators go to the trouble of researching a topic, making their argument & either backing it up with sound logic or links or both, only to have the comment deleted because the author disagrees with the argument put forward, it raises two points. One, why bother going to all that trouble. Two, comments have been invited then deleted without explanation. That is not ethical behaviour.
A test I try to apply when examining data is firstly how does this evidence support what I already believe? Secondly, how does it support an alternative point of view?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me this study shows stronger evidence that CO2 historically follows as a result of warming rather than leading.
What bearing has this on the present day where human contributed increase in CO2 for a time coincided with increased global temperature in excess of the long term trend but has for about seventeen years ceased to run in tandem with increased CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Of course, many people dispute that & try to denigrate those who support the contention. It is a little awkward for those who deny the link has been broken, when even the head of the IPCC UN climate committee agrees that there has been no significant warming for seventeen years. Those who dispute the contention must explain why so many scientists are seeking the ‘Lost Heat’ & have come up with many possible explanations such as ocean surface temperature or deep ocean subduction of heat but these explanations are no consistent with the hard data from the thousands of Argos readings. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=riser-argo-network-senses-ocean-changes
Those who really wish to look at the evidence will also find the following link very informative. Note it s from what is generally considered a very green site. It does not discount CO2 but offers a fascinating insight into another global temperature moderating mechanism. See: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
Paul Voosen, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Tuesday, October 25, 2011
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
There are many mechanisms affecting the long term trends of climate, and to select only one (e.g. CO2)for the basis of all future argumentation is a fools errand. Malenkovich cycles, greenhouse gas concentrations, albedo effects of ice and clouds, etc. all play into it. You can neither solve the problem nor deny the problem by focusing on only one variable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, an apparent 17 year pause in the rate of global temperature increase (whether or not it is verifiable) neither proves nor disproves the effect of atmospheric CO2 on warming. Other effects can interfere with the CO2 effect, for example increased releases of sulfates from burning of coal or from volcanic activity.
Recent measurements suggest that higher sulfates might be ameliorating the effects of higher CO2. This is a temporary effect, and I hope to God that we don't see this as an excuse to a) deny the climate science, or b)to use this as an excuse to pump more sulfates into the air to combat CO2 (see "climate engineering")
It is clear that elevated CO2 levels are bad for our climate, and that they are currently increasing a a rate unprecedented in human history. This is a fact known by more than 97% of climate scientists, far outnumbering the opinions of "scientists" who have less knowledge of the climate data.
I have not seen you on these pages before. I have been posting here for years. Those who have been here for some time are tired of my oft stated objection to unnecessary burning of fossil fuel for electricity production. I regard it as an immoral waste & a theft of valuable resources from future generations. In my oft stated opinion there is no excuse for wasting time & resources on renewable energy that can never supply 24/7 power at a monetary or ecological cost compatible with genuine conservation. Only nuclear power can achieve that goal. Unfortunately, many who post here, while claiming to be environmentalists, shun the only alternative that offers clean almost unlimited power that can not only supply the developed world but help the under developed world out of poverty. By the way,this is not a popular position on many SIAM sites & once again could lead to deletion of all posts. I sugest you copy & save any posts you have made if you wish to keep them for future referance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know the present increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans and not caused by global warming because CO2 from fossil fuels has lower C13/C12 ratio than atmospheric CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the C13/C12 isotope ratio in the atmosphere is decreasing shows that the CO2 is coming from fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess if you really want to get back to the "original" temperature increase, you would need to go back to the big bang. ;) But in the context of the article, the original temperature increase could have been caused by any number of things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Increased volcanic activity
- Massive meteor or comet impact
- Natural variability of the sun or of Earth's orbit or inclination of axis.
- Alien intervention (tongue in cheek ;)
I am sure that there may be evidence someplace (ice samples, geologic records, etc) that have further clues as to the initial circumstances that induced the warming.
Such error. How does reducing temperatures "lead" from 600yrs to 200 years change the fundamental law of causality. Cause ALWAYS precedes effect (except some quantum mechanics). First the temperature rises... then more CO2 enters the atmosphere. Only CAGW ideology allows for the opposite. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the deniers say we only have 100 years of climate data, not 800,000. Who is correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with jtdwyer. It is regrettable that people are labeled climate deniers. There are at least 28 or so different climate models currently supported. Are we climate deniers is we fail to accept them all as gospel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the mentioned "apparent 17 year pause in the rate of global temperature increase," a recent study of the years 2000 to 2010 may at least partially explain the anomaly as the product of an increase in volcanic ash. Please see
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50263
Of course cause always precedes effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, increasing temperature can release sequestered co2 _and_ increasing atmospheric co2 can increase the retention of radiated thermal energy, increasing temperature.
BTW, there is some significant lag time inherent in the complex processes that produce global environmental changes - for example, the ocean can absorb and release both cos2 and thermal energy over time. Various contributing processes may have their own production cycles, but they likely counteract each other over periods of many hundred years; less over shorter periods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study of ice core is irrelevant to today's climate change because even if CO2 wasn't the cause of global warming in the past thousands of years, it doesn't mean that is also true today. It doesn't prove anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 today is due to burning of fossil fuels and the amount of CO2 we emit every year is twice larger than the ave. increase in atmospheric CO2.
Great comments here today, particularly Carlyle and Greese007 (new?). I hope the SA 'comment nazis' don't delete Carlyle again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, you are dead on the money in comment #22. A standard nuke plant replicated worldwide could solve the entire problem, if only. G'day, Mate.
jtdwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your accusation is unfair and unfounded!"
I interpreted your
"... I'd expect any competent scientist to be skeptical of their conclusion when evidence indicates that the proposed cause lags its proposed effect!"
as meaning
"... I'd expect any competent scientist to be skeptical of their conclusion (that the AGW theory is correct) when evidence indicates that the proposed cause (rise in CO2) lags its proposed effect (rise in temperature)!"
Please explain how else your words were to be interpreted.
There are two problems with the current implementation of nuclear power. First is the risk of accidents causing a meltdown and massive release of radiation. This is directly linked to the historical development of water cooled reactors for use by the navy and their subsequent use in land based power plants. There are alternative designs using the same fuels that do not require water coolants and cannot melt down because of a loss of cooling water. These designs must be further developed and implemented instead of the dangerous water cooled designs we use now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second problem is the waste storage problem, which can be greatly reduced by burning up the radioactive wastes within the reactors. The fear of stealing plutonium from a operating reactor seems overblown. These plants are well protected and removal of radioactive wastes from an operating reactor seems highly impractical before an appropriate response to a takeover could be mounted.
Build the right nuclear power plants, and both problems could be solved. Ditch the water cooled designs and force the companies using those designs to drop their objections for a better, safer technology.
"How does reducing temperatures "lead" from 600yrs to 200 years change the fundamental law of causality. . . . Only CAGW ideology allows for the opposite. GK"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does saying that the lead has been reduced automatically indicate to you that it has been eliminated? Perhaps denier ideology didn't allow for any other interpretation? Hmmm?
BINGO! I've been tearing my hair out for years over the stupid way we approach nuclear power. Make me the philosopher king of the Western world and I'll fund a dozen different advance reactors/cycles on day one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere WOULD be grave doubts that CO2 caused global warming if CO2 levels lagged global temperatures. However, even if these 2 parameters were in lockstep does not further the cause of that belief because warmer oceans release more CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, these ice-core data show evidence to the contrary. Global temperatures have several times, over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, been up to 2C higher than today despite their CO2 levels being much less. How does that work?
The flaw in the CO2 causation of global warming is that, although it is a greenhouse gas, quantitatively, its further effect at the current high concentrations, is nearly zero. Its greenhouse effect is all but saturated. The alarmists’, for want of a better term, argument that further increases of CO2 will lead to higher IR absorption and therefore higher global temperatures is, literally true, BUT what is left out is, such increases are insignificantly small. There has to be another cause for the observed global temperature increase.
BTW: I am in favour of reducing burning fossil fuels, but only because they are a finite resource. If the REAL cause of global warming is identified, maybe a way of utilising that heat energy source will become an alternative energy source.
You are stuck in the beliefs of the 1970's when many thought that the CO2 absorption being saturated was the general belief. In the 1980's it was shown that the way CO2 works is much more subtle. The CO2 molecules absorb and then re-emit in all directions. Since each molecule is surrounded by re-emitting molecules the radiation eventually rises thru the atmosphere and eventually to space. The real reason that the blanket is effective is that the higher levels of CO2 get cooler with increasing altitude and eventually get too cold to re-emit, trapping the heat. More CO2 means more at high altitude and a better blanket. That is also why the satellite observations look cooler. The emissions at high altitude are reduced and the observations are from above this layer. Yet, down below it is hotter. Just like you would expect. Compare this to a remote measurement of a sleeping person in a cold room. No blanket, he looks hotter. Put a blanket over him and the blanket looks cooler, but the man is warmer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is much confusion and misunderstanding about the so-called CO2 saturation. Well CO2 isn't saturated. Doubling CO2 will lead to radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. Read this link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/
Global warming in the past may have different causes but in the last century CO2 is the obvious culprit, the highest level in 800,000 years.
Re #40, Dr Strangelove.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(a) As I wrote in regards to the saturation of CO2 absorption, it is literally true that CO2 does not become completely saturated but “such increases are insignificantly small”.
(b) I’ve found that people invoke “forcing” to invoke a convoluted argument to arrive at a different answer from that derived by a more obvious and easier route. Your link is an example of this. Its large number of dissenting replies illustrate this.
Additionally, it contains numerous errors, eg it has two Black-body curves that are quite different but which should be very similar; one (288K) peaks around 10micron as expected, yet he uses the other (277K) peaking about the obviously wrong 20micron! Presumably because it fits the (satellite) IR data better! Satellite IR data that I’ve seen quoted by AGW proponents are different from sea-level data (eg Gebbie,etc), where global temperatures are actually measured. That isn’t explained.
(c) “ …CO2 is the obvious culprit, the highest level in 800,000 years.”
That’s the point. If, as you say, CO2 is not (significantly) saturated, and it’s at the highest level, why are global temperatures lower than the previous temperature peaks?
20. Carlyle in reply to greese007 10:04 PM 3/2/13
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswrites an interesting comment which concludes with a link:
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
The link takes one to an amazing article citing the work of some of the foremost climate scientists and some of the leading research institutes in the world of climate research and science research in general.
Every one of the descriptions of climate research quoted is one hundred per cent in support of anthropogenic global warming catastrophe driven by human co2 emissions.
And yet... every one of them is engaged in dealing with a number of problems with the basic model behind the global warming _consensus_.
They all acknowledge that the seas and temperatures aren't rising as the models said they would. They all acknowledge that solar variance is more important than previously thought. The same for the presence or absence of aerosols; that the water vapour load in the atmosphere changes dramatically, that 1998 shouldn't be used as indicator of anything other than a massive El Nino. They don't really know how the ocean handles warming and can't, without much more research, use it to explain any apparent discrepancies in the basic model. They even mention the problem of the ancestry of code. This refers to the fact that many of the models all use the same code and algorithms so that if there is a flaw in the original code then there will be flaws in all the models that rely on it.
These are all leading catastrophic global warming advocates running massive research programs, some of them costing millions or tens of millions of dollars trying to resolve what they themselves regard as very basic, obvious issues with the supporting evidence.
Now that the failure of some of the sweeping conclusions that have been used to justify their policy recommendations have become visible to anyone paying attention, they realise that they have to play catchup.
Myself and others have raised these same issues over the years only to be accused of being morons, shills, idiots, illiterate dupes and that we should be charged with crimes against humanity for raising them.
Scientific consensus?!!? Spare me.
Science has known how to calculate the concentration of a gas in solution under pressure since 1803. (See Henry's Law) The question about whether or not atmospheric CO2 responds to temperature change has long been settled. This work is not a revelation in physics, it further resolves the data and improves our understanding of the temperature feedback in the climate system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on earlier work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820's on heat and motion, John Tyndall in 1859, identified two invisible gases, water vapor and CO2, that trapped invisible (infrared) heat waves. He was a scientist and mountain climber familiar with glacier, he saw evidence that glaciers once covered much of Europe. He hypothesized that lower concentrations of these gases for long time periods could cause glaciers to form. Water vapor is a fast feedback to temperature, not only will the air hold more, increased evaporation keeps relative humidity constant. CO2 is a much slower process, as anyone who carbonates beer or soda in a keg can attest.
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius posited that CO2 feedback would itself become a forcing to the faster water vapor feedback, adding enough amplification to the orbital forcings and albedo flip to melt the great ice sheets.
Here is a history of the science.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
In my point (c) of #41, I should have written
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat’s the point, CO2 can NOT be the culprit.
As explained by the article, the 288K-peak graph is ideal, the 275K-peak graph is actual satellite data. You should use satellite data not sea-level measurement because you have to integrate the outgoing IR at different altitudes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If, as you say, CO2 is not (significantly) saturated, and it’s at the highest level, why are global temperatures lower than the previous temperature peaks?"
Temperature today is highest in 7,000 years. Look at sea level data to verify this. The ocean is a gigantic natural thermometer. Sea level rise due to thermal expansion of seawater (excluding melting of glaciers).
Re: Dr Strangelove #45: Where do I start!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(I’ll enumerate your paragraphs 1 2 3)
(1) Somehow, low-level IR measurements show CO2 saturation but when measured by satellite they become unsaturated! Give us a break!! Obviously satellites are measuring something different from that measured at sea-level – and in laboratories .
What’s causing the satellite error is direct (downwards) solar radiation is also being reflected outwards, towards them by high level dust, tops of clouds, etc. The satellites measure this plus Earth’s radiation to give an apparent, rather than real, unsaturation. You will notice much the same with Venusian satellite data but which seem to show even more CO2 unsaturation despite its concentrations being many times higher than Earth’s. There’re a lot of particulates in Venus’ swirling atmosphere. (And since you might wonder …. Venus’ runaway greenhouse heating is more accurately assigned to its many gaseous sulphur compounds, each of which have multiple IR absorption bands, as opposed to CO2’s only two.)
Odd how the author’s graph has its wavelength peak changed so radically to longer wavelengths! … Because it’s wrong. Even that author’s two graphs don’t agree with each other.
I’m not complaining so much about whether 275K or 288K is chosen as the curves shouldn’t too be much different - but somehow they are here! Obviously 288K is correct, ideal even.
(3) Actually, it’s the highest for more than 130,000 years but less than 145,000 240,000 310,000 and 390,000 years – when the CO2 levels were significantly lower than today’s.
(2) My point
"If, as you say, CO2 is not (significantly) saturated, and it’s at the highest level, why are global temperatures lower than the previous temperature peaks?"
remains.
An example taken from the past is not proof of what could happen in the future! At best, it is a proof that some equilibrium exists between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere; say c, and the temperature on earth; say T. It can mean that T = f(c), or c = g(T), or c, T = h(x), where x is as yet unknown.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe obvious conclusion is that there is a powerful mechanism that links both parameters. In other words, an interaction exists between these 2 factors that leads to an equilibrium, or maybe a third factor is at work that determines both the temperature of the atmosphere and its content of CO2.
Another conclusion can also be drawn: Any supplement of CO2 entering the atmosphere through human activity probably has a minor influence only on the temperature of the atmosphere. So one should now strike through the A in AGW!
That third factor, 'x', is almost certainly the nuclear fireball in the sky and no amount of denial by warmists will change that. Unless there is a second peak, solar cycle 24 is extremely docile and already starting to fade. I suspect we are in for chilly weather ahead (decades), and it will Not be caused by AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain the 288K graph is ideal and the 275K graph is actual observation. The real world is not ideal. Science is based on observation. If you don't want to believe what you see, you can just imagine things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you know the global ave. 130,000 yrs ago? What is the margin of error of ice core samples? You need thousands of temp. measurements evenly distributed around the earth's surface to get a statistically significant mean value. This was not done until 1850 and the error was still large.
In order to refute others' claims that you are not illiterate, you may want to use the term "myself" correctly in the sentence in which you complain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe, and I use the term because I know that others are interested, would also like citations in reference to your claim that:
"They all acknowledge that the seas and temperatures aren't rising as the models said they would. They all acknowledge that solar variance is more important than previously thought."
It is my understanding that solar cycles are not to blame for the recent upswing in temperature (in fact, solar cycles would lead many to believe that we may be heading into a cooling period, but we are not).
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
As for the models that predicted current temp's, they did it pretty well.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
50. moss boss in reply to northernguy 07:26 PM 3/12/13 writes......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..We, and I use the term because I know that others are interested, would also like citations in reference to your claim that:....
The first sentence in my comment was the link which contained the material the rest of the comment discussed. I set the link off from the main body of the content so that it would be conspicuous, but that seems to have been insufficient so I will offer it again.
The link originally posted by Carlyle is:
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
As for my self evident illiteracy as indicated by the use of the phrase _myself and others_ I take you at your word. The use of reflexive pronouns when someone is the object of discourse rather than a participant is contentious even though it is common.
Woe is I now that I have been caught by the resident grammar police.
Dr Strangelove’s “Again the 288K graph is ideal and the 275K graph is actual observation.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Actually, as that author states, he also uses the “ideal” as he plots the satellite data together with a calculated curve which is the supposedly theoretical 275K - although it is wrong as 275K’s actual theoretical maximum should be around 10 micron as opposed to the 20 micron shown. In other words, he’s even using the wrong theoretical curve for 275K – and even that temperature is wrong. The accepted average temperature at which Earth is radiating is 288K. But that is, as I said before, a minor point relative to the other errors.
So much for your ideal vs actual argument!
2. I don’t know the global average temperatures 130,000 years ago. I don’t even know what it is today. Nobody does. Because, as you say, “You need thousands of temp. measurements evenly distributed around the earth's surface to get a statistically significant mean value.” That hasn’t been done and probably never will, particularly the evenly distributed around the Earth bit. However, currently there are about 2000 stations, and the average they’re giving is something that we expect closely reflects the how real Global Average Temperature changes.
The Vostok ice-core data, obviously, are not expected to be representative of all the Earth’s temperatures but is expected to VARY in a manner representative of the all of the Earth. Therefore, I can say that the Earth was warmer 130,000, etc years ago with a great deal of confidence. If you are looking for the degree of precision of those ice-core data, I suggest you look at Petit’s paper which is available in many places, eg Wikipedia, and is quoted by many. However, what you are really looking for is the precision of the changes in temperature, and this, from the shape of the graphs, would appear to be within tenths Celsius.
To summarize my position on Global Warming. Yes, it exists but the Anthropogenic component of AGW, via CO2 at least, is quite minor.
From Ice-core data: This GW not AGW. The Earth MAY rise by 2C ….. over the next few millennia. It’s uncertain that how much it will rise as the mechanism for the past temperatures at 130, 240, 330 Kyears ago that were 2C or so higher than today’s is not known - although Milankovich seems to be implicated but, I’m told, is too small. (I’m working on something else additional). I’m just relying on curve-following in the grand tradition of the alarmists. (Solar cycles seem to have the wrong periodicity to explain much other than small variations.)
From (land-based) IR data: The contribution of Total CO2 increases since 1950, which is around the start of the so-called AGW era, to Global Warming of 0.6C is less than 0.2C, of which mankind has made a contribution. The upper limit to further Global Warming due to more than doubling atmospheric CO2 – which seems most unreasonable – is a further 0.3C. (That’s not to say the total amount of Global Warming will necessarily be limited to 0.3C because of the natural possible rises as shown in the ice-core data).
Temp. variation in one location is never representative for temp. variation for all locations. You need a statistically significant sample size to determine the mean variation of the whole population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo attribute 0.2C to CO2 means you can predict exactly the complex interactions, the radiative forcing and feedback of all the variables in the climate. Your claim to precise knowledge is as preposterous as IPCC's claim.
Suffice it to say that global temp. as indicated by sea level rise and atmospheric CO2 are both highest in at least 7,000 yrs. The probability that this occurred purely by chance is about 2%.
This discussion just screams: We need more GRANT MONEY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo questions:
1. How much money will keep you Greenies happy (in dollars, please)?
2. Given that much money, WHAT (the verb) will you DO to fix the problem?
Thank-you, your posting are a breath of fresh air. Realists seem to be rarefied, in these parts. Hope you can stick around. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG.Karst. Thank you very much. It’s nice to get feedback. It’s even nicer when it’s supportive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Strangelove writes
1. “Suffice it to say that global temp. as indicated by sea level rise and atmospheric CO2 are both highest in at least 7,000 yrs. The probability that this occurred purely by chance is about 2%.”
Errr… How many thousands of data did you say this was based on?
Actually, I agree with the statement, which you would have known IF you’d read and understood what I’ve written all along. In fact, the Vostok data extend that period from 7,000 to 130,000 years, etc. However, this only supports GW which is not the same as AGW, the cause of all the debate.
2. I don’t have to predict the interactions, etc. The alarmist scoundrels play with these, using very complicated arguments and “forcings”, disguising the fact that they really don’t have a valid argument supporting AGW. (I wonder what agenda they’re pushing?) Can YOU give such an argument? (And I mean AGW not just GW).
Conveniently, (land-based) IR does it all for you. They are the result of all these interactions. One can calculate, via graphical integration – mind that you use energy as the abscissa rather than wavelength, as some authors seem to have done - the proportion of the greenhouse heating of 33K that is due to CO2 – it’s almost 4K currently - and the degree of saturation of the CO2 bands to determine how much more (0.3K) it is capable of absorbing.
You may notice that my IR calculations are in accord with the Vostok data - as well as all other observations I’m aware of – while the scoundrels’ are not.
An application of Ockham’s razor would not go astray. You may know this principle better as KISS.
So let's see; instead of acknowledging that what their pseudo-science profession had blindly preached was impossible; they instead synthesize new data to fit their implausible conclusions, rather than calling a spade a spade and ending the charade; clearly none of these folks should be considered legitimate scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to start celebrating women with 2 or 3 kids instead of those with 5, 6 or 13.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do we do to men who have a number of kids with an equal number of women?
How do you account for the changes in temperature before man. Seems to me that there are a whole range of factors exclusive of man that have an impact. Are you suggesting that if AlGore had been around in the Mesozoic Era, by selling and trading Dino-fart credits he could have halted warming then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this