ICE MELT: Carbon dioxide likely trapped the extra heat responsible for the end of the last Ice Age, according to a new analysis.
Image: Courtesy of Michele Koppes, University of British Columbia
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters—more than if the ice sheet that still covers Greenland were to melt today. This freshwater flood filled the North Atlantic and also shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward. The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result—and for reasons that remain unexplained—the waters of the Southern Ocean may have begun to release carbon dioxide, enough to raise concentrations in the atmosphere by more than 100 parts per million over millennia—roughly equivalent to the rise in the last 200 years. That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.
That, at least, is the story told by a new paper published in Nature on April 5 that reconstructs the end of the last ice age. Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."
Shakun and his colleagues started by creating the first global set of temperature proxies—a set of 80 different records from around the world that recorded temperatures from roughly 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Ranging from the magnesium levels in microscopic seashells pulled from ocean sediment cores to pollen counts in layers of muck from lakebeds, the proxies delivered thousands of temperature readings over the period. "Ice cores only tell you about temperatures in Antarctica," Shakun notes of previous studies that relied exclusively on an ice core from Antarctica that records atmospheric conditions over the last 800,000 years. "You don't want to look at one spot on the map for global warming."
Comparing the global set of temperature records with the levels of CO2 in the ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores reveals that global average temperatures started to rise at least a century after CO2 levels began to creep up. That's the reverse of what seems to have happened in Antarctica, where warming temperatures precede rising CO2 levels. But that local warming may be explained by this shutdown of ocean currents as a result of massive glacial melt in the Northern Hemisphere—a result further reinforced by computer modeling using the data gathered from the real-world record.
The reason for the retreat of the ice sheets remains elusive, however. Whereas there was a change in the relative strength of the sun roughly 20,000 years ago thanks to variations in the planet's orbit, it was smaller than changes that preceded it and failed to trigger a melt. In fact, ice cores from Greenland suggest there was an even larger warming event in the north roughly 60,000 years ago, notes climate scientist Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in a comment on the findings also published in Nature.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
95 Comments
Add CommentThank you Mr. Biello for providing multiple links to the body of peer reviewed research that supports the narrative found in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope you meant that sarcastically, because very few of the links in this article lead to peer-reviewed work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo I did not mean that sarcastically. For once Scientific American provided links to the peer reviewed science that it discusses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are the links provided by the article about the peer reviewed research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1217161.abstract?ijkey=c3067784ba8dd543fcbdd1e176fb0deed3e7d941&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
What exactly is your beef?
"The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd how do they reconcile this conflict with the prior findings?
"You don't want to look at one spot on the map for global warming"
But apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK? Sounds like someone's trying to cherry-pick the data to make it fit their preconceptions to me.
"'We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes.'"
That's an awful broad statement. I guess things like volcanism & plate tectonics took some time of during that period? Also, did only the Northern Hemisphere undergo 'these orbital changes'? I'm pretty sure that would've had much bigger consequneces that ending an Ice Age.
"Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause."
Then why is there so much argument about it? Maybe because it's not as clear as some people want to believe?
2 links out of the 14 that appear in the article lead to peer-reviewed work? (Actually it's 3 out of 15, but 2 of them lead to the same paper, so it's be more accurate to discount the redundancy and say 2 out of 14.) That's not what I'd call "multiple links", particularly when you realize that 6 links lead to other SciAm articles by Mr. Biello.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to this graph from NOAA, it looks like the current warm-up fits in perfectly with the natural pattern that's been occurring for almost half a million years:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
Are you seriously contending that every link must lead to a peer reviewed article or are you just having a Bill Clinton moment and contesting the use of the word "multiple"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Madscientist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou link provided in post#6 does not say what you claim it says. All you have done is use the eye-chrometer Mark I and claim a natural pattern without a suggestion of a mechanism.
I'm saying that your use of the word multiple is a misleading exaggeration. Considering that this article is ABOUT Shakun's research published in Nature, that just leaves the Science paper to be "body of peer reviewed research that supports the narrative" - and that "body" isn't even hobbit-sized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMad Scientist quotes and says: "Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause." Then why is there so much argument about it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: You have confused the fake skeptic noise for scientific discourse. That humanity has increased CO2 levels by 40% and so correspondingly raised Earth's temperature is not widely disputed in the scientific community.
This can be confirmed by simply looking at the all the works on climate that have been published since the 19th century:
All you have to do is go look at the history of the peer reviewed works to figure that out. Since 1900 to the present, 267 skeptical papers have been published. Many of them in contradiction with each and long refuted. Since 1824, a sum of 2491 pro-agw papers have been published.
A Interactive History of Climate Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate_science_history.php
It is a fascinating site. When you click on a particular year circle a list of papers for that year will appear.
Madscientist Says: Considering that this article is ABOUT Shakun's research...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Not just Shakun but also these people: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1217161.abstract?ijkey=c3067784ba8dd543fcbdd1e176fb0deed3e7d941&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Remember them? You did click on the link remember?
Mad Scientist Says: ...that just leaves the Science paper to be "body of peer reviewed research that supports the narrative" - and that "body" isn't even hobbit-sized.
Trent Says: If you had clicked on the links and READ them then you would not be spouting such ignorance. E.g one of the links that was provided was to Spencer Wert's, "The Discover of Global Warmming" and their you would have found an interactive history to the science of climate change with references and all. References that run into the multiples of multiples. Here is that link again:
The Discover of Global Warmming
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Amazing what you will find out when you read a link instead of not counting them.
"Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen why is there so much argument about it? Maybe because it's not as clear as some people want to believe?"
I've come to the conclusion that almost the only argument about where modern global warming comes from is American political conservatives. I haven't seen any other part of the world where there is significant skepticism about it, nor have I seen it from people who are not conservatives or representatives of big oil.
The scientists who study climate are called "climatologists" and very few of them dispute that man-made production of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are a significant component of our global warming. I believe that the scientists who have spent their adult lives in studying climate know more about it than the oil companies and conservative radio talk show hosts.
Mad Scientist Says: But apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK? Sounds like someone's trying to cherry-pick the data to make it fit their preconceptions to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: If instead of counting the number of links you had chosen to read them then you would have come across this passage from one of the peer reviewed articles:
"Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
And then if you had looked at figure 1 you would have discovered that those eighty sites are scattered across the globe. Then again maybe Mr. Multiples definition of "select few" means > 80.
I think that 40% number is one of my favorites you warmists spout. About the equivalent of saying I had a 50% increase in meals per day because I went from eating 2 to 3 but the hype you create from CO2 rising from .0280% to .0390% sounds so dramatic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou warmists are slipping though. According to numerous SA articles and a variety of websites of your warmist religion, there is no possible natural cause for CO2. So either this article is full of BS, because again according to you warmists CO2 can only rise to warming levels when caused by humans OR you warmists are full of BS and there are in fact natural reasons for warming to occur or CO2 to increase in concentration.
You warmists should be careful with articles like this, this kind of information sort of debunks your myth about humans being the sole and only possible cause for CO2 increases that cause global warming.
The only thing keeping the denialist cult going is the massive ignorance(some of it deliberate) of the general public. The last post is an example of this- wildly false claims with no attempt whatsoever to support them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-100 ppm is a big deal because that is the difference between ice ages and heat waves. That the environment was very responsive to carbon in the past is actually an argument in support of global warming, not against it.
-That scientists supposedly claim there is "no possible natural cause" is so wildly false that I am amazed you would state something so dumb. Clearly we are dealing with a level 1 troll here.
The reason we are concerned is because CO2 is rising 100 to 1000 times faster than a natural rise, and we have very solid evidence that the earth is very sensitive to CO2 rises.
MadScientist says: Well-played, sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent says: CLICK ON THE LINKS!!!!!!!!!
I've never gotten so much entertainment from the comment section of a global warming article.
Pugsley... I'm not going to narrow-down global warming arguers to American political conservatives, but I will absolutely agree that Americans seem to make up the majority of them.
It's a shame that the greed of the powerful always trumps the well-being of the masses. I hope that some real changes are made, before we push the environment past its breaking-point.
MadScientist72 points to an ice core data record and tells you that the current state is part of a natural cycle. I guess he isn't aware that ece core records do not run up to the current year, and I guess he is unaware that the current level of CO2 is about 392 ppm, because if he was, then surely he would have noticed that the record he points to has a maximum CO2 level of about 300 ppm. The we are off the chart he points to when trying to say it's all normal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mechanism of CO2 interacting with long wave radiation, which is what the earth emits, has been established for about 150 years; that more CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet has been established for about 100 years.
@Prideseren,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want you to think. Yes, I know a difficult task to be asked of someone who has the intellectual acuity of concussed hamster, but I ask this nonetheless.
When you claim that "warmist religion, there is no possible natural cause for CO2" and all I have to do is take a look at the summary of the science and see that they make no such claim. Does it ever make you wonder why you and reality travel in orthogonal directions? Ever?
Perhaps it time you became familiar with following concepts:
Ratio
Isotope
Suess Effect
Keeling Curve
And when you do then perhaps you bring your hobbled intelligence and grasp the following article printed in the American Geophysical Union's publication Eos:
Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic
Carbon Dioxide
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
From the article:
"For example, a global volcanic CO2 output
exceeding 35 gigatons per year would
imply that the annual mass of volcanic CO2
emissions is more than 3 times greater than
the likely annual mass of erupted magma"
And:
"It is implausible that this much magma production—
more than 40 times the annual mid-ocean
ridge magma supply—is going unnoticed,
on land or beneath the sea. Besides,
the release of more than 35 gigatons per
year of volcanic CO2 into the ocean would
overwhelm the observed acid-buffering
capacity of seawater and contradict seawater’s
role as a major sink for atmospheric CO2"
So the next time you feel the need to rant like oxytocin addict about matters you zero insight too. Just don't. You embarrass all right thinking sentient beings when you do.
About the Interactive History of Climate Science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just checked a few articles in their database. Apaprently, there is a mix of peer-reviewed and non peer reviewed. Example: a communication at a Heartland Institute conference, a well-known climate-skeptic organisation. This can hardly be qualified as peer-reviewed paper.
I would assume that including non peer-reviewed paper would increase the number of climate skeptic papers more then those of cliamte science.
"And then if you had looked at figure 1 you would have discovered that those eighty sites are scattered across the globe. Then again maybe Mr. Multiples definition of "select few" means > 80."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, no Trent, it means some number N+1 where N is the number of sample sites you actually have! hehehe.
You hit that nail right on the head. The American conservative party is anti-everything except nuclear. There is no amount of evidence you can present to them that will get them to change their mindset, so don't waste your time and feed into their lunacy...they are all trolls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a good article and it does a good job in explaining, except to trolls, the length of time it takes for an ice age and a heat age to occur naturally, and it gives a good explanation in how modern human activity is speeding up global warming. We are knocking thousands of years off the natural process and we will pay dearly for our actions. I would rather pay dearly for trying to prevent global warning than to pay dearly with starvation, disease and death our speeding up of the climate is going to cause. The conservatives want to pay dearly until they get all the fossil fuel extracted and then they will say, "Let those warmers clean up now." They are idiots and they will never be more than that.
@Alain,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the people at Skeptical Science would like that info on the papers you found that are non-peer peer reviewed. Just go to comments and leave the info for the paper.
"Comparing the global set of temperature records with the levels of CO2 in the ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores reveals that global average temperatures started to rise at least a century after CO2 levels began to creep up. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat these bubbles trap and maintain the concentration of CO2, intact and undiminished, for hundreds of thousands of years is a convenient claim that has never been scientifically proven or substantiated. Rather it has simply entered the folklore of Climate Science as an accepted fact because it plays into the AGW campaign. It has then been used as accepted fact to support AGW and belittle sceptics.
And here comes Howard B to make an argument by blatant-and-unsupported assertion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe absorption spectrum of CO2 shows that it is transparent to most wavelenghts in the IR range:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
By comparison, water absorbs a much higher proportion of IR:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
And a researcher at the CRU (remember them from the 'Climategate' brouhaha?) admits that current understanding of water vapor's effect on global temperatures is inadequate:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/thesis/2007-willett/1INTRO.pdf
If they don't understand one of the most potent and abundant greenhouse gases, how can the really expect us NOT to be skeptical when the speak with such certainty about the doom that's coming as a result of one of the weakest? (CO2 has THE lowest "global warming potential" of any greenhouse gas on the UNFCCC's list: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php)
"Then again maybe Mr. Multiples definition of "select few" means > 80."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe earth has a surface area of approx. 198 MILLION square miles. 80 sample locations means that each sample site is allegdly representing almost 2.5 million sq. mi. That sounds like few to me.
"And then if you had looked at figure 1 you would have discovered that those eighty sites are scattered across the globe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you had read the header on that figure, you would have seen that they are sites for TEMPERATURE proxies. That figure shows nothing about CO2 sampling.
Here's the BBC's coverage of the same research:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
It is, in my opinion, much better-quality reporting.
I find this section particularly interesting:
"Dr Shakun's team has now constructed a narrative to explain both what was happening on Antarctica and what was happening globally:
-This starts with a subtle change in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as a Milankovitch "wobble", which increases the amount of light reaching northern latitudes and triggers the collapse of the hemisphere's great ice sheets
-This in turn produces vast amounts of fresh water that enter the North Atlantic to upset ocean circulation
-Heat at the equator that would normally be distributed northwards then backs up, raising temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere
-This initiates further changes to atmospheric and ocean circulation, resulting in the Southern Ocean releasing CO2 from its waters
-The rise in CO2 sets in train a global rise in temperature that pulls the whole Earth out of its glaciated state"
Shakun's directly contradict his own "CO2 first" claim. Even though the initial temperature increase was localized to Antarctica, it still PRECEDED the CO2 increase (which also originated in Antarctica).
@Madscientists,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that you have decided to go on a Gish Gallop of Moncktonial proportions. Now in your first two links you have again fallen to the use and only the use of the Eye- Chronometer Mark I. What you fail to see is that unlike water vaport CO2 is a well mixed gas. This is something that should be self-evident to a child who glances up and notices such phenomena as rain and clouds. Neither is water vapor found in the same proportions at sea level as at 5,000 meters.
Then again maybe you still disagree. Then perhaps you could explain how the radiation transfer codes are in error using empirically based peer reviewed research.
Radiation Transfer Codes:
http://circ.gsfc.nasa.gov/
I so look forward to your revised figures and the "true" explanation of how IR seeking missiles really work.
Now onto your last link. In it you claimed, "admits that current understanding of water vapor's effect on global temperatures is inadequate" and then you leap over to this conclusiont, "they don't understand one of the most potent and abundant greenhouse gases, how can the really expect us NOT to be skeptical when the speak with such certainty about the doom that's coming as a result of one of the weakest?"
I am puzzled. How is one researcher saying we need a greater understanding get translated into the screech that researchers understand nothing? And in this damming document we find the following passage:
"The evidence for an anthropogenic effect upon climate is growing. Time is of the essence for greater knowledge and understanding. The aim of this project is to provide a
high quality data source for the climate community with which to address issues related to surface humidity."
Page 31
Care to elaborate on how you missed that passage?
Trent Says:nd And then if you had looked at figure 1 you would have discovered that those eighty sites are scattered across the globe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMadscientist Says: The earth has a surface area of approx. 198 MILLION square miles. 80 sample locations means that each sample site is allegdly representing almost 2.5 million sq. mi. That sounds like few to me.
Trent Says: Two things:
1. You have committed the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity. Just because you can not bring yourself to believe a proposition is a refutation of it. You substituted disbelief for analysis. What something "sounda like" is not a rational critique
2. You engaged in goal post moving. Your first comment was the following, "But apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK? Sounds like someone's trying to cherry-pick the data to make it fit their preconceptions to me."
You clearly stated that you thought one or more sites had been what the paper had based its results in. When I can simply scroll up and see what you actually said why would engage in such blatant dishonesty?
Madscientist approvingly cited the following BBC news story:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404
And then says the following, "Shakun's directly contradict his own "CO2 first" claim. Even though the initial temperature increase was localized to Antarctica, it still PRECEDED the CO2 increase (which also originated in Antarctica)."
One day we all hope you learn the difference between the words "Antarctica" and "Global". Are you at all aware that as far back as 1990 it was predicted in the INITIAL stages of a interglacial it is the polar temperatures that would rise first?
The Ice Core Record: Climate Sensitivity and Future Greenhouse Warming:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf
Perhaps it is time you became familiar with the concept of the Milankovitch cycles.
Now looking at the article you were so happy to point too. Let us see if your interpretation of the article can with stand scrutiny:
Headline: CO2 'drove end to last ice age'
Strike 1
Introductory paragraph:
"A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Strike 2
"The key result from the new study is that it shows the carbon dioxide rise during this major transition ran slightly ahead of increases in global temperature."
Strike 3
"But Dr Shakun and colleagues argue that the Antarctic temperature record is just that - a record of what was happening only on the White Continent"
Strike 4
"Our global temperature looks a lot like the pattern of rising CO2 at the end of the ice age, but the interesting part in particular is that unlike with these Antarctic ice core records, the temperature lags a bit behind the CO2," said Dr Shakun,..."
Strike 5
Now they put it into bullet points for convenience. Since Scientific American does not allow for HTML in comments I will number a few points:
"1. This starts with a subtle change in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as a Milankovitch "wobble", which increases the amount of light reaching *NORTHERN LATITUDES and triggers the collapse of the hemisphere's great ice sheets
2. This in turn produces vast amounts of fresh water that enter the North Atlantic to upset ocean circulation
3. The rise in CO2 sets in train a *GLOBAL rise in temperature that pulls the whole Earth out of its glaciated state."
*astreiks added by author to original text for the hard of learning.
You fail in reading comprehension
With all your babble about heat-seeking missles and "eye chronometers" (a chronometer is a clock, by the way) you're just cluttering the discussion with irrelevancies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What you fail to see is that unlike water vaport CO2 is a well mixed gas."
'Well mixed'? I think the appropriate term is diffuse. Those clouds that you seem to think bolster your argument do exactly the opposite. They show that the air is much closer to saturation with H2O than it'll ever be with CO2.
"You engaged in goal post moving."
I did nothing of the sort. You're trying to pass apples off as oranges. Figure 1 clearly states that those 80 points are TEMPERATURE proxies. It says NOTHING about CO2. And even if they had used the same 80 points to obtain CO2 proxies, when put into global perspective they're so FEW (remember I said a select few) that they're utterly inadequate for providing a comprehensive analysis of global CO2 levels
@Madscientist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou approvingly cited this data table from the IPCC. As some sort of evidence that CO2 is a insignificant GHG. Yet, you seem unable to understand what the table is about.
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php
Here is what it says with astreiks in emphasis for the hard of learning:
"Global Warming Potential referenced to the updated *DECAY RESPONSE for the Bern carbon cycle model and future CO2 atmospheric concentrations held constant at current levels."
And what is the Global Warming Potential? From the IPCC:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/tar-ipcc-terms-en.pdf
"An index, describing the radiative characteristics of well-mixed greenhouse gases, that represents the combined effect of the differing times these gases remain in the atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. This index approximates the time-integrated warming effect of a unit mass of a given greenhouse gas in today’s atmosphere,"
Now the key here is that you seem unable to grasp the concept that this is comparison of what each INDIVIDUAL gas can warm. It does not address the respective AMOUNTS of GHG in the atmosphere. E.g Methane is several times more powerful than CO2 but it is measured in Parts Per Billion.
MadScientist72,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did well with your links to the NIST site for spectral absorption, but, as Trent pointed out, you still don't have anything like a complete picture. H2O varies widely by location, and especially by altitude. There is a lot of it near the surface and extremely little of it above about 15km. In contrast, CO2 only varies by about 7 ppmv (out of over 390) from surface to the top of the atmosphere. Above about 9km, there is more CO2 than there is H20.
Here is a simple write-up. They use MODTRAN, which integrates absorption/emission across atmospheric composition as it changes by altitude. The simple answer is that more CO2 does have an effect.
http://mensch.org/5223/RadForce_print.pdf
You can play with MODTRAN here if you like,
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/~mcguire/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.html
BTW, you have not responded to the errors I pointed out about your assertion that current CO2 levels are just part of a natural cycle. I take it you are admitting you were wrong?
Interesting arguments. I have a few questions to help me make up my mind. I used to be a research enzymologist so I'm coming more from a biological/biochemical prospective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) C02 dissolves into water quite readily. I suspect that after thousands of years, it will dissolve into the ice and the actual levels in the microbubbles might be lower. Was carbonic acid levels checked in the immediate ice surrounding the bubble?
2) According to SciAm, we produce 27 billion tons of C02/yr but we place that into an atmosphere that already has 3,600 billion tons...or three fourths of 1% is "man made". Seems quite a small amount if you look at the demominator(which is conviniently forgotten).
3) From a biologist's point of view, I suspect that the Sun has more to do with the temp of the earth. And if it got warmer (due to the sun), I believe that the poikilotherms(and I include prokaryotes, fungi, phytoplankton, zooplankton and larger organisms) would have increased metabolism there by releasing more C02. So I question the very premises of this article. The sheer biomass on this planet is 560 billion tons, not including bacteria, which is probably far greater.
The automatic acceptance that the rise of C02 is the cause of earth's increasing temp will stunt the progress of scientific endeavor to find the real cause(s).
Re: "If they don't understand one of the most potent and abundant greenhouse gases,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, review the information I have provided, and ask yourself what makes you think "they" don't understand the effects of water vapor. You might also want to use Google Scholar to search for water vapor+positive feedback, and see for yourself if "they" are not aware that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas.
@Madscientis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo to spite your claim that CO2 is insignificant you are going to ignore the empirical peer reviewed work that details how CO2 works throughout the atmosphere? Research originally initiated by Department of Defense work in order to construct IR seeking missiles. Got it. You have no understanding of what you are talking about.
You also seem to be under the impression that your eyeball impression of what the graph says is a substitute for rigorous TIME analysis of the data. Hence the Eye-Chronometer remark. Your ignorance of this subject is stunning. Perhaps it is time you actually read what you post links too?
But apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK?
1) You would probably want to look that up in the original publication. However, if look at a high resolution plot of the data, it remains pretty jagged. If there was very much diffusion going on, it would be considerably smoother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) Yeah, yeah, we know that our contribution is a small part of the overall flux, but, if our small part does not change the balance, why is the concentration going up?
That is a long dead zombie.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
3) Well, what we are talking about is shortwave energy from the sun, absorbed by the earth, and emitted as longwave. CO2 interacts with the LW and slows down its outflow. Yes, you are correct; the earth would be a lot colder if the sun quit shining, and it would get warmer if it shown brighter. But what's your point? Neither of those things is happening on a scale large enough to explain the earth's increase in temperature.
Meanwhile, have a look at the radiative energy information that MadScientist and I have provided.
I proposed several years ago in "Nature", a mechanism adding a positive feedback loop in increasing atmospheric CO2 content, and thus global temperatures. As the water temperature raises, so does the water vapor pressure inside the water, and this vapor pressure competes with and displaces all gases dissolved in the water, thus releasing CO2 and other greenhouse effect gases previously dissolved in the waters. To ascertain the magnitude of this issue, one would need knowing how fast, or how slowly the raise in surface water temperatures goes to the deep water, that may be the big part in the waters that dissolve and store or release CO2, reaching an equilibrium as long as there is some mixing of surface and deep waters, mixing whose speed and degree remains unknown to me. A model proposed that due to the global warming effects, heating of the northern waters, to which the thawing of Arctic ice will add another warming trend, the gulf stream would have had a notorious slowdown around 2010, but several volcanoes erupted, and even when this emits more CO2 to the atmosphere, the ash sent up acts as an screen, reducing the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface, and thus the global warming. Some seem having proposed that the changes in ice amounts would trigger volcano eruptions, as the changes in the weight on some parts of the earth's crust will allow plates to move, and so increase volcanic eruptions. It was not surprising that my comment had no echo, as my field of work is healthcare, not geology or meteorology, I'm just an "amateur", and no calculations or figures accompanied it. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow onto your unique blend ignorance and pedantry. You claimed that, "apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I have pointed out that it is a "well mixed gas". And what is you response? You have descend into pedantry about using the word "diffuse". Nowhere do you admit or address the empirical fact that CO2 is diffuse in the atmosphere. And we both know why. Because if you had then you would be forced to admit that a FEW sampling sites is all you need to get the global composition of Co2.
So allow me to ask you a few questions:
1. Do you admit that unlike water vapor CO2 is well mixed gas....I mean diffuse in the atmosphere?
2. If not then can you point to the body of empirical research that contradicts this well know fact?
3. Do you admit that water vapor varies far more greatly in concentration than CO2? In other words, do you expect water vapor to be the same amount in altitude and geography everywhere?
"One day we all hope you learn the difference between the words 'Antarctica' and 'Global'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am well aware of the difference. Once again you insist on missing the point. The localized temperature increase in Antarctica cause the localized CO2 increase. As that Anarctic CO2 diffused throughout the atmosphere, it became a global event. But the global event was triggered but the local one, where temperature came FIRST, not CO2. Since temperature led & CO2 lagged, the conclusions they draw from their CO2-first premise are invalid, as are the "strikes" you call based on them.
"DECAY RESPONSE for the Bern carbon cycle model"
Oh joy! Another model! And just like all the others, it's chock-full of assumptions. The best part of it - in the words of Dr. Fortunat Joos (http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html) - is this "To conclude, results of the Bern model in general agree with results of A/OGCMs". Apparently, all it take to be a good model is the ability to agree with other models!
"As some sort of evidence that CO2 is a insignificant GHG."
There you go again - hearing things that weren't said. I said CO2 is WEAK as a GHG, not insignificant. And pound-for-pound it IS the weakest. As far as concentration goes, its PPM may give it greater overall punch than methane's PPB, but since I was comparing it to water which is both stronger AND more concentrated (reaching as high as 4% [that's parts per hundred]), but generally ignored but the AGW crowd.
Of course, the mechanism for a reduction in the Arctic ocean ice sheet increasing the Arctic waters temperatures is that ice reflects sunlight, albedo is the name for this, light reflection that includes its heat transmitting part, while water absorbs sunlight's heat. Changes in the salt content of the Arctic ocean waters may also have an influence on the degree and extension of ice build-up in this ocean, and thus also in the Atlantic streams, and the salt content of waters in this region has connections with the amount of fresh water coming in there from the siberian rivers. This are comments at a high school student level, as this is my level of knowledge in the field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So allow me to ask you a few questions:..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou continue to miss the point. How homogenous (or 'well-mixed', if you prefer) the CO2 is ultimately less important than how MUCH is in the atmosphere, because it's so diffuse (LOW concentrarion). The heat reflecting up off the earth's surface has to hit a molecule in order to be absorbed by it. And since there are a lot more water molecules in the air than CO2 molecules the heat (IR photons) are going to hit the water molecules a lot more often. At PPM concetrations, they'll hardly ever hit CO2 molecules. And the fact that the water vapor is more concentrated near the surface just means even fewer photons are going to reach the CO2 scattered in the upper atmosphere.
"BTW, you have not responded to the errors I pointed out about your assertion that current CO2 levels are just part of a natural cycle. I take it you are admitting you were wrong?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. The difference between the current 392ppm CO2 & the highest peak on the chart (300ppm) is only 92 parts per MILLION, or 0.009% of the total atmosphere. As jgrosay pointed out, that could easily be accounted for by CO2 diffusing out of the ice that was used as a proxy source. It's had more than 300000 years to do so, after all.
That brings me to the bigest thing I hate about these paleoclimate models - the use of "proxy data". I realize that there are no direct measurments before about 1850, but mkeing sweeping claims based on data whose accuracy we won't be able to confirm for 100000 years or more is awful presumptuous, don't you think?
"Changes in the salt content of the Arctic ocean waters may also have an influence on the degree and extension of ice build-up in this ocean"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for bringing this up, since it's something that every high school chemistry student learns, but the melting-ice-cap doom-&-gloomers seem to have forgotten - as salinity decreases the freezing point of the water increases. As the oceans get fresher, the melt will slow, because more of it will re-freeze.
Thank you, I had the opposite idea, that when the salt content of water increases, the harder for it to freeze, and that that was the reason why they throw salt after a snowfall, to difficult melting snow to becoming ice plates that are harmful to persons and cars. ???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Madscientist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep on claiming that you understand the difference between local temperatures and global but every other word that you write belies this assertion. No one but you have claimed that CO2 preceded warming in polar regions. The articles make no such claim. That you insist otherwise is telling. What you do not understand or willfully refuse to acknowledge is that GLOBAL CO2 levels preceded the rise in GLOBAL TEMPERATURES.
Madscientist Says: DECAY RESPONSE for the Bern carbon cycle model" Oh Joy! Another Model!
Trent Says: Moron. You are the one who cited the page. I simply pointed out that you have no clue what the page is about. If you did not trust the data in the first place then why did you cite it? And no your invoking of your personal incredulity is not a rational argument.
Mad Scientist Says:There you go again - hearing things that weren't said. I said CO2 is WEAK as a GHG, not insignificant.
Trent Says: Allow me to introduce to you the concept of the synonym. Your attempts at pedantry are looking increasingly desperate.
Now since think that the IPCC is a good source or do you? I get confused since you seem to veer between citing it as an authority and reviling it. Anywho, your assertion that CO2 is weak gas are not factual as I pointed out and will again using the IPCC.
Radiative Forcings:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html
Oh, lookie here! It gives it in relation to the parts per for each gas. And what it say about CO2?
1.66 watts per square meter.
Methane? 0.48
Nitric Oxide? 0.16
I am looking here for how CO2 is so "weak"? Care to explain? Because contrary to your claims CO2 is the second strongest GHG.
"From the IPCC: The increase in CO2 mixing ratios continues to yield the *LARGEST SUSTAINED RF of any forcing agent. The RF of CO2 is a function of the change in CO2 in the atmosphere over the time period under consideration."
So which do you think it is? Are the experts confused or are you incompetent?
Madscientist Says: As far as concentration goes, its PPM may give it greater overall punch than methane's PPB, but since I was comparing it to water which is both stronger AND more concentrated.
Trent Says: AND nearly responds instantly to changes in temperatures and occasion precipitates out of the sky in events people who are in the know call rain, snow, hail, etc.
While CO2 does not precipitant out at any temperatures out found here on Earth One of the reasons it is called a well a mixed gas.
*Emphasis added for the hard of learning.
#43,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes you think that energy absorbed by a molecule is never emitted again? Because, if it is emitted again, eventually it will get to a region where there is more CO2 than H2O. As H2O concentration declines to be below CO2 concentration, CO2 would play a more significant part. Also, the wings about the 15 micron absorption band expand as the concentration increases. What makes you think you know more about the radiative physics of the atmosphere than actual physicists, you know, like the Air Force scientists and others who wrote MODTRAN?
I pointed out that H2O concentration declines as you go up in altitude.
I pointed out that the data from the ice core would be much smoother than it is if there were much diffusion going on.
You are ignoring the facts that others are presenting; that is not a way to have a rational discussion.
#44,
It seems that you are willing to agree that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature when CO2 varies between 180 and 280, but not when it changes from 280-290 to 390+. Can you explain why CO2 has an effect from 180 to 280, (after all, that is also only ~100 parts out of a million) but does not have any effect from 280 to 390?
So, you are also saying that the slow diffusion of CO2 from ice cores over 300,000 years may be responsible for the rapid increase observed only over the last 150 years. Does that even make sense to you?
BTW, you originally asserted that this is all part of a natural cycle, and then presented evidence that we are outside of the pre-existing cycle. You have yet to reconcile your assertion with the evidence you provided.
Google is your friend. Found this on about the second search.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
Short version is, yes, it diffuses, the rate is very slow, but the main point is that this has already been looked into. It isn't like you guys are thinking of something new.
Madscientist Blabbers: You continue to miss the point. How homogenous (or 'well-mixed', if you prefer) the CO2 is ultimately less important than how MUCH is in the atmosphere, because it's so diffuse (LOW concentrarion).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says. I see more goal post shifting. At first you said in post#4, "But apparently looking in one (or a select few)spots for global CO2 concentrations is OK?" Since by your now implicit admission CO2 is a diffuse gas then your objection to the number of sites that looked at co2 levels in the ancient past can be dismissed with prejudice.
Now onto the new fake objection. Having switched to this new talking point that CO2 levels are too low. I am going to point out three things:
1. Your claim that CO2 levels are "LOW" is a species of logical error known as the Argument from Incredulity. Just because you think they are too "LOW" is not an argument that they actually are.
2. You are also guilty of making an assertion as a fact without any facts.
3. Your assertion is also factually in error. CO2 levels have not been this high in at least 800,000 years and probably not this high in the past 15 million years.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
Madscientis Says: And since there are a lot more water molecules in the air than CO2 molecules the heat (IR photons) are going to hit the water molecules a lot more often.
Trent Says: Which part of CO2 is well mixed gas and water vapor is not do you not understand? Water vapor is much more concentrated in the lower troposphere and not in the middle and upper part of it. CO2 is well represented in ALL levels. This is an observation. We can even observe the IR waves being captured and re-radiated back down to the surface in larger amounts as the concentration of CO2 levels increases at the frequencies that CO2 captures and re-radiates it over decades. This has been observed both from IR satellites that have been in orbit since the 70's and ground stations that see the increasing IR.
Global Atmospheric Downward Longwave Radiation Over Land Surface Under All-Sky Conditions from 1973 to 2008:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
Increases in Greenhouse Forcing Inferred from the Outgoing Longwave Radiation Spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Why were you not aware of this science?
@Chris G Says: What makes you think that energy absorbed by a molecule is never emitted again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Good catch! I let that one slip right past me.
Chris Says: Because, if it is emitted again, eventually it will get to a region where there is more CO2 than H2O. As H2O concentration declines to be below CO2 concentration, CO2 would play a more significant part. Also, the wings about the 15 micron absorption band expand as the concentration increase
Trent Says: Damm chris, that is good point. I am going to steal that.
You said, "That humanity has increased CO2 levels by 40% and so correspondingly raised Earth's temperature is not widely disputed in the scientific community."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AND is where you display your problem. No one disputes humanity has raised the CO2 level. That it causes significant climate change is in dispute.
You've cherry-picked your statistics from the source you cited. There are 2611 NEUTRAL or skeptical papers compared to 2490 pro-agw papers. As an environmental scientist myself (with some, but not extensive climate modeling background), I vote neutral.
It's hard to argue when people want warming to be true. they even call it "PRO-agw," like they are for it.
Would there be less carbon dioxide produced during an ice age because of a globally reduced plant cover, i.e. less photosynthesis? Hence, reduced ice sheets covering land would give opportunity to enhanced plant cover giving rise to more CO2 in the atmosphere. This could explain, perhaps, that higher temperatures precede rising CO2 levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you call Trent a cherry picker?! Wow, The NEUTRAL scientific papers mostly don't take a stance at all. It's not like the neutral papers say "We see no compelling evidence either way", it's that these papers just don't focus specifically on AGW enough to make qualified statements. The "skeptic" papers are far and few between, possibly around 1% of the papers that endorse the consensus position, so lumping them with the large number of "neutral" papers is highly disingenuous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost "skeptic" papers and arguments are thoroughly debunked here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
ALL assertions are backed up in those articles. Face it, CO2 traps heat, that heat can be quantified and the warming patterns we're OBSERVING RIGHT NOW fit the pattern of CO2 warming just as they were predicted decades ago.
Not exactly. When the oceans are colder, they can absorb CO2 more quickly, leading to decreasing CO2 concentrations, leading to lower ocean temperatures, leading to more absorbed CO2, leading to lower ocean temperatures, etc. Additionally, ice reflects more incoming solar energy than the darker ice-free land and ocean, leading to lower temperatures, leading to more ice cover, leading to lower temperatures, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChanges in the Earth's orbit start the advance of ice sheets, but since the climate is highly sensitive to forcings (changing about 3C on average to ANY forcing equivalent to doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm), these and many other feedback loops amplify the initial solar warming a great deal. If you're just considering the increased heat retained by the atmosphere when CO2 reaches 560ppm, it is enough to raise the Earth's average temp by 1.2C. However, the aforementioned feedback loops eventually bring this up to 3C. Since we are showing no signs of slowing down, and human emissions are the BIGGEST uncertainty in climate modeling, we need to cut our emissions NOW just to be certain what level of warming and the types of climate disruptions we can expect.
@ Chris G - "What makes you think that energy absorbed by a molecule is never emitted again? Because, if it is emitted again, eventually it will get to a region where there is more CO2 than H2O."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSOME of it will be re-emitted (once energy goes in, you never get all of it back out), but it won't matter much, since the IR emission spectrum of H2O is in the 300-650 cm-1 range (http://www.isac.cnr.it/wavacs/sites/default/files/Lanciano_Orietta.pdf), but the IR absorption
spectrum of CO2 is in the 550-3800 cm-1 range (http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1), so there's hardly any overlap.
"So, you are also saying that the slow diffusion of CO2 from ice cores over 300,000 years may be responsible for the rapid increase observed only over the last 150 years"
No, I'm saying that the slow diffusion means that estimates of past CO2 concentrations are inaccurate (on the low side) and therefore, the modern increase is less than it appears.
@ Trent1492 - Has anyone ever told you that name calling is an extremely juvenile behavior and a lousy way to get anyone to take you seriously? this schoolyard bully approach to dealing with opposition is sadly shared by many in the pro-AGW camp and is a significant contributor to their credibility problem. You bore me.
Science Fan Says: The AND is where you display your problem. No one disputes humanity has raised the CO2 level. That it causes significant climate change is in dispute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Sorry but there is any "significant" dispute going on. Over more than a century numerous predictions have been made about what a CO2 induced warming would look like and those predictions have been observed.
Science Fan Says: You've cherry-picked your statistics from the source you cited. There are 2611 NEUTRAL or skeptical papers compared to 2490 pro-agw papers. As an environmental scientist myself (with some, but not extensive climate modeling background), I vote neutral.
Perhaps you should read what they mean by "neutral".
"There are a large number of neutral papers. Neutral does not mean to say each paper was unable to resolve the climate myth. Sometimes, a paper is relevant to a number of climate myths and the results are mixed as to whether it endorses or rejects all the myths. In many cases, the paper doesn't directly set out to directly resolve the myth or the paper has a regional emphasis rather than global. Some papers are about method development more than obtaining a final result. Papers that met any of these criteria are often categorised as neutral"
@Madmoron,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say you are very much a pearl clutcher. Considering the heaps of verbal abuse, threats of death, rape and job loss that are regularly issued by the fake skeptics; I am nonplussed that you take offense to an insult.
I tell you what, when I see you and the other Ms. Manners regularly engage and castigate those who accuse honest scientist of dishonesty and call for them to be placed in jail, I will listen. Till then I will regards such calls for civility as simply another demand for asymmetrical behavior by a hypocrite/s.
MS72 is trying to explain science to us, but does not appear to have a firm grasp on some fundamentals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"(once energy goes in, you never get all of it back out)"
Hmm, that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy.
Previously, he has said that a photon was much more likely to encounter an H2O molecule than a CO2 one, and now he is saying that there is very little overlap in their absorption spectra. It appears that he is unaware that molecules are like antenna that are tuned to specific wavelengths, and they only emit wavelengths that they absorb.
Also, he again displays a lack of skill at reading a graph; the graph he points to for CO2 shows a peak at 667 and another at about 2300. CO2 does not interact with the wavelengths between those areas in any significant way. In addition, the absorption band around 667 is in the fat part of the earth's emission spectrum, and the other CO2 bands are well outside of it.
Please do not take my word for all of this, google 'gas chromatography', 'earth emission spectrum', and similar.
"No, I'm saying that the slow diffusion ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've already covered this. Read the paper; it's been looked into already. The rate of diffusion is about 10^12 times too slow for your hypothesis to be plausible.
@Chris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am finding evidence of shenanigans ongoing at Skeptical Science. Apparently someone is giving bogus citations to the skeptical papers categories found on their Interactive History of Climate Science. Some slug has been double counting skeptical citations by placing decades old papers in 2011, citing non-peer reviewed sources, and opinion articles found in unrelated professional journals such as law journals.
I have notified SKS with about a dozen examples, but I have not received any response yet. One of the commentators here let me know that something was amiss when he noted that in the skeptic category he found citations from the Heartland Institute.
"Hmm, that would violate the law of conservation of matter and energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. I didn't say that some of the energy is destroyed, just that it stays IN the H2O molecule.
"now he is saying that there is very little overlap in their absorption spectra. It appears that he is unaware that molecules are like antenna that are tuned to specific wavelengths, and they only emit wavelengths that they absorb."
Look again. I said there's very little overlap between H2O's EMISSION spectra and CO2's ABSORPTION spectra. And you've obviously never done fluorescent microscopy or you'd know that it's not at all unusual for molecules to absorb at one wavelength and emit an another.
"Also, he again displays a lack of skill at reading a graph; the graph he points to for CO2 shows a peak at 667 and another at about 2300."
Who can't read a graph? The peak at 667 starts climbing around 550. And there's a 3rd peak around 3800 which has a sharp drop-off (back to zero before 3900, so my statement was accurate - all of CO2's IR absorption occurs between approx. 550 & 3800.
"Till then I will regards such calls for civility as simply another demand for asymmetrical behavior by a hypocrite/s"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're going to insist on exhibiting all the traits you claim to hate in your opposition, you're really in no place to call anyone a hypocrite.
If such hateful, stereotype-filled rants are the height of your conversational abilities, maybe SciAM isn't the place for you. There are mags out there that cater to haters, but this isn't one of them... try something like Guns&Ammo.
"No. I didn't say that some of the energy is destroyed, just that it stays IN the H2O molecule."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if any fraction of what goes in, stays in, permanently, then ... How much energy do you think an H2O molecule can contain?
I'm wondering why you are talking about any kind of *opy if you don't know that the emission bands and the absorption bands for any given species of gas molecule are the same. You are talking about them as though they can be different; else, why capitalize two different words that describe the same spectra?
Why do the bands around 2300 and 3800 matter since the earth emits very little energy at those wavelengths?
@Trent,
I looked at a few of the papers from the SkS history, and it struck me that they have been messed with. Also, some of the papers have been moved from their original links. I suspect that the volunteers there are aware of the problem, but are torn between taking that down and not having time to fix things. Also, if they fix things, like removing non-reviewed publications, or papers assigned to the wrong category, then they will get dinged for "censorship". I don't know that there is a perfect solution.
It is not as bad as one blog site I saw where papers were put in the anti-AGW camp despite the authors of the paper explicitly stating exactly the opposite. The blogger there apparently thinks he knows more about what the researchers wrote than the researchers themselves. Can you say 'hubris'? Or would that be 'delusion'?
Mad Scientist Translated: I am going to ignore the threats of death, rape, unemployment, character assassination, theft, vandalism, unjustified government witch hunts and censorship and cry deeply about being called a name on the internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this will clarify the picture for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page11.htm
Try to keep in mind that the absorption/emission is a function (logarithmic) of density, and H2O becomes less dense more rapidly than CO2 with altitude. Above about 9km, there is more CO2 than H2O.
Chris Says: Also, if they fix things, like removing non-reviewed publications, or papers assigned to the wrong category, then they will get dinged for "censorship". I don't know that there is a perfect solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: I think that leaving an inappropriately categorized paper in its place is contrary to the mission of Skeptical Science to communicate good science and counter the disinformation.
I think one way of handling accusations of censorship is to simply make every move public on the thread. I do not see how anyone in their right mind could object to moving inappropriately dated papers to the proper year or removing cites that are not peer reviewed or not science.
Then again, I sometimes forget the caliber of integrity we are dealing with. My bad.
Chris Says: It is not as bad as one blog site I saw where papers were put in the anti-AGW camp despite the authors of the paper explicitly stating exactly the opposite.
Trent Says: I know exactly who you are talking about. He monitors Google for mention of his name ceaselessly. I feel like we are talking about Lord Voldermont.
Chris Says: And H2O becomes less dense more rapidly than CO2 with altitude. Above about 9km, there is more CO2 than H2O.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: This is something Mad Moron is unwilling to admit.
How about we try this. All of you convinced that global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it lead by example. Turn your computers, shut off your electricity, sell your cars, plant trees, lead a totally carbon free existence. Since this is difinatively caused by humans, lead the charge, lead by example, live a life that does not add to the problem. Get all these scientists to quit using computers, which are adding to the problem, tell them to quit flying around the globe in those CO2 emmiting airplanes. I'm afraid, I don't want to die!!!! I don't want to burst into flames or starve to death. I am afraid of the ocean rising and causing me to drown. Please do your part to help save my life. I'm going to get rid of electricity, but if I burn candles or lanterns will that add to CO2 levels? If so, what do I do for light? I want to walk everywhere, but my shoes have rubber soles, what should I wear?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are they storing these ice core samples? Are they in an electric powered freezer? How are they drilling the samples? Surely they are not using equipment powered by fossil fuels? I think petroleum was used on the plastic casing of my computer? How about yours?
@Crunkmonkey,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to think about your argument. Take your argument and put it into another context. The year is 1850 and a Southern gentlemen rises up before his audience and says:
"Are any of you Abolitionist wearing cotton? Did you have sugar with you coffee this morning? After dinner did you relax and have a puff on a fine cigar? If you answered in the affirmative to any of these questions then I condemn you as hypocrites!"
Can you find the flaw in the reasoning here? If so, then you have it why your own reasoning is unsound.
Nonsense, A 50-70ppm increase of CO2 = ~1.1W/m^2 of RF in photon firing frequency from the spectral window of interest, the last ice age ended in a few centuries as we warmed 5-7C..so no it wasn't CO2 and had nothing to do with it...remember a Watt is a value of Joules/Sec. Think, 0.038% of the atmosphere emitting LW photons downward/sideways/etc renders an unmeasurable thermal disporportion to the 99.75% of the atmosphere that is opaque/transparent to emitted photons & the Sun's SW vector, BUT can only attain 'heat' via conduction (direct physical means). These molecules cannot emit, either, they're stuck with what they attain which is attain via collision with the surface, which is conducted back to the surface at night, slowing the cooling process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore importantly, there is essentially no diurnal variation in ocean temps, and the ocean surface temps are on avg ~3C warmer than the air above them, and LW emitted via GHGes such as CO2 can only penetrate ~ 0.25mm deep, wind accelerates the evaporative/convective process...ice is melted via sublimation in temps below 0C. The only thing that can warm the oceans thoroughly is a change in SW imput/cloud variation over time..linear correlations do not exist between the oceans and the Sun. The general atmosphere insulates the surface at night to a much higher extent, all gases are 'GHGes'. The S-B threshold does NOT apply to the Earth with or without GHGes because the atmosphere-ocean system renders energy in-energy out at unequal rates..you can't combine SW and LW into an equation relating them in equal time.
This is nonsense. 'Clear cause'? Are you serious? Sure, if you wanna use magic wand physics to arrive at that fairytale conclusion. How was this even published?
@Phill Willy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of spouting nonsense perhaps you should read what the geophysicists say?
The Physical Science Basis:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
"What Thawed the Last Ice Age?" is the same "it" that thawed the ice at least 20 times before. "It" was not CO2. Although CO2 is very transparent to most photons, except 15-micron photons that CO2 totally blocks, blaming CO2 is a fad, which fear mongers do with zeal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the geological record, interglacial periods are much shorter than the glacial periods. Therefore, this suggests that solar effects cause ice ages. The sun becomes quiet for shorter periods, which cause it to heat the Earth less than normal during those short periods. Less heat causes an ice age to end because less moisture is transported towards the Polar Regions, causing glaciers to recede. The Earth resists climate change, and so less moisture also involves less cloud cover. Less cloud cover causes higher surface temperatures in the daytime, but less heat is delivered by the sun.
We know that CO2 does not affect climate. Dr. Hertzberg has a file about the lynching of carbon dioxide, which can be viewed at http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
The dynamic model of the globe has proved: that in time I a stage (many millions years) the Earth in general was in System of planets of other Galaxy; that during occurrence in Solar system the volume of a planet and a level of Ocean II stage has changed; that during III stage the level of Ocean in limits (1400 м) repeatedly changed - according to stationary and non-stationary position Ms, the stage III in time last about (800 thousand years); why IV stage began at an extraordinary level of Ocean why during this stage in limits (10 thousand years) the abnormal weight of an ice dome of Antarctica is fixed and the level of Ocean does not change. Thus, the past of a planet from a position of Static model of the globe (working) and last planets from a position of these two models of the globe - very much differ. The DM precisely answers, what changes, when and why occured (from the moment of occurrence of the Earth in an orbit of the Sun), the DM also allows to predict, will be accompanied by what changes turn Ms in a stationary position in the future. If David Biello even has briefly familiarized with a site “ Dynamic and Static models of the globe of a planet the Earth ” where it is proved, why the ice dome in Northern hemisphere would started to thaw and collapse disappear necessity to invent hypotheses about concentration CO in air, details on a site .ww.mammoths.narod.ru
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's add to the mix here. D.S. Allan and J.B.Delair wrote book awhile back, 'Cataclysm! Compelling Evidence for a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 BC.' Allan & Delair theorize that fragments of a super nova in the Vela star system crashed into our solar system 11,500 years ago and then approached Earth. Thus stressing the Earth for a few thousand years. This caused the axis tilt of Earth and began the advent of precession of the equinoxes. Now I go to research done by Barbara Hand Clow, 'Awakening the Planetary Mind'. The advent of precession caused a cultural shift by fundamentally altering our experience of climate and time, and humanity was forced to adopt agriculture in response to the new seasonality. Regardless, it is virtually certain that a great cataclysm changed everything on Earth 11,500 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe output of the sun most certianly had nothing to do with it everybody knows that the sun is like god a constant and will be around forever. These are scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Donrijo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you lot can never ever be bothered to read what you comment on? From the article:
"We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research."
What thawed the last ice age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Heat.
Next question?
Trent: Careful, I am a physicist, thankyou. Do not buy into this pure nonsense, a mere 1.1W/m^2 of RF had nothing to do with the end of the last ice age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis study is an insult to my field, there have been no physics done in this study...just timing an increase in CO2 of insignificant amplitude (1.1W/m^2 is diddly squat) We human beings have increased CO2ppm by ~ 100ppm since 1850..you get an ~1.7W/m^2.
Come back to me when you gain at least a smidge of understanding, then we can debate this.
If this study were legit, they'd explain how a 50-70ppm increase in CO2 (At most 2W/m^2, but largely insignificant forcing there) could cause an increase in temperature of viable magnitude to overcome the gain in albedo that would result from an increased GHE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent: Maybe I can give you a lesson in physics if you so wish..you need it. LW frequency emitted via GHGes cannot penetrate more than 0.25mm into water, there you get evaporation in the transpirative layer though the SST surface is ~ 3C warmer than the air above it which is why global temps lag SST changes, this thin layer of heated water reforms immediately, even after a breaking wave...the GHE can only exist over land, and the thermal inertia required to pull the Earth out of an Ice Age in a matter of 500yrs or less is simply not available in the 'backradiation' from an increase in CO2..let alone in a high albedo environment that we have in a ice age.
Remember that N2/O2 CANNOT emit the heat they attain via conduction from the solar-heated surface, but rather can only conduct it back at night. The Oceans lose heat very slowly hence must warm to a much higher extent to equate their emission frequency to that of incoming SW and the coinciding vector there determines imput depth.
GHG models are fatally flawed in assuming that the rate of energy in-energy out in an ocean-atmosphere system would be equal without GHGes. This is bullcrap.
The Greenie Weenies have answered this already. What melted the Ice Age is AGW. Cars. Coal fired power plants. Cows allowed to fart at will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, let the Ice begin in approach Chicago, and let the GW's whine about that, too.
Do you even know how much energy 1.7W/m2 over the ENTIRE GLOBE is? It's 2 Hiroshima bombs EVERY SECOND! Do the math, this heat doesn't just go away. It warms the ocean, leading it to release more CO2. It melts ice, lowering the Earth's albedo and raising temperatures even more. This heat even melts the permafrost, releasing billions of tons of methane that will warm the climate even further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, doubling the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere in the space of around 200 years is UNPRECEDENTED in the geologic record. CO2 increases this fast are associated with mass extinctions. Why in the world would you advocate recreating the precursor conditions to the End Permian Mass Extinction? Nights are warming faster than days and the poles are warming much faster than the tropics, so changes in the Sun are definitely NOT causing this warming. The Troposphere is warming while the Stratosphere is cooling, so it's something mostly in the Troposphere that's blocking the flow of heat to higher altitudes. Temperatures and cloud cover do not correlate with cosmic ray flux, so that's not to blame either. Face it, the pattern of warming is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The fall in ocean pH is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning billions of tons of stored carbon while damaging and degrading natural carbon sinks is EXACTLY what we expect would cause a buildup of CO2. Since 99% of the gas in the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to IR, changing CO2 by 100ppm (and showing NO signs of slowing down) is a BIG DEAL and our business-as-usual emissions scenario is an extremely reckless path to keep following.
To sault - if 1,7 w/m2 over the entire Globe that is a two H - bombs every second. But for given time already (some thousand years) with the beginning of IV stage have appeared the Thermal stream of bowels (in the Southern hemisphere) - this stream transforms into water (annually) a wall of ice in height (100 m) width (250 m) the length of this wall makes (40 thousand in km). Is it interestingly possible to compare thermal energy of bowels in quantity H - bombs every second?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUm, you don't make any sense there, bucko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Phill Willy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are spouting nonsense. Perhaps you should go learn what real geophysicists are saying instead of invoking arguments of incredulity and making assertions without a hint of empirical research to back it up. Now I have already presented to you the links to the PHYSICS of climate change and as best I can tell you have ignored it.
Why?
Mars atmosphere has about 240,000 times more CO2 per volume then Earth yet is a very much colder. That is because Mars gets much less radiation due to its distance from the sun. The earth has its glacial ages because there are times when the sun's radiation on earth is reduced because the sun is a varible star and its long term cycle causes its glacial ages with regularity. Also an orbital change would not cause glacial ages because the summers would be to hot - you need cold summers for glacial ages - everything averages out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://novan.com/globalwarm.htm">Global Warming</a>
Venus has 240,000 (just copying a random number) times more CO2 per volume than Earth yet is very much warmer. That is because Venus gets much more radiation due to it's distance from the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut Venus has an albedo of more than 70% while earth only has an albedo of 30%. Maybe things should balance out???
If the earth has glacial ages then so should Venus because the sun is a variable star and it's long term cycle causes it's glacial ages with regularity .........
Do you see why your argument makes no sense at all ??????
Mercury is much closer to the sun and much hotter than Earth AND much cooler than Venus. Rest assured that the sun does not cause glacial cycles on Mercury.
The causes of global warming are completely understood and only crackpots question it: so is it time to stop wasting money on climate research?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current practice of science, the so called scientific method, now at least 500 years old and well understood and respected by trained scientists, is to develop and state a hypothesis that is sufficiently robust to explain all relevant and related observations. Once a robust hypothesis is established experiments are devised to test the hypothesis experimentally. If observations are consistent with predictions of the hypothesis it is elevated to a Theory and we say the hypotheis joins the ranks of established science. Fair to say there is no science of global warming and certainly not even a robust hypothesis. The result is noise and controversy, the precursors to Theory. So bang away at one another you believers and skeptics; it manifests the beginnings of science but don't take it seriously and if possible don't be insulting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSad when key advertisers or contributors are oil company reps. These types stories will likely continue huh? Even if they have a grain of fact, they cloud the issue. Hopefully, the ones they consider dearest to them, will fall prey to the next "natural" disaster caused by "non" global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChatting back and forth with so-called "skeptics" of Global Warming is quite satisfying to those who gain billions of dollars by making humans dependent on fossil fuel consumption. There is no valid debate, only the one created and perpetuated by those who know they'll enjoy their wealth now and be dead by the time the world climate causes the downfall of civilization. The best insulation against heat or cold is money - the wealthy generations will be far more comfortable than the poorer majority generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver notice that the wealthy support Science only so long as it supports their fortunes? When Science threatens their fortunes, it's fairly easy to create "debates" and to "discredit" scientists.
I have written almost the exact same comment numerous times on these SA comment threads, but it never changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood effort though, well written and thoughtful.
I strongly wish to disagree with the means propagated warming Earth in this article. Two events are involved. One was extremely slow and would have eventually warmed Earth baring on disruption. The second was rapid and overrode the first. No investigator before the author of the text " The End of The Last Ice Age ", found at www.omega-spacepublishingusa.com, examined the energy levels necessary to extract Earth out of glaciation. The energy level extracting Earth out of the Younger Dryas Event ( YDE )at 11,700 yBP was 123 time that from the Sun. That is slightly less than 170 kilowatts per square meter Solar is and was about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter. The first point which started Earth warming is hidden in the data from the ice cores and it is complex which requires a good bit of reading and study to understand. But, so is the factor that warmed Earth rapidly at several point in the PHT or if you like " The end of the last glaciation. ". There are three illustrations in the noted text that will change the way scientists look at Earth's paleo, present, and future climate. Those illustrations are Ill 7.6a,-b; -7.7 and 14.00. There are on the order of 65 illustrations in the noted text and each one illuminates some aspect of Earth's geology, climate and astronomy. Just how did the Black Mats come to exist? And, how about the Carolina Bays? What produced the energy levels noted above to warm Earth in just 150 years at 11,700 yBP. How is Paleoclimate related to the paper published by: Solanki, S.K., et al. 2005. 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction. The great variability in his C14 data created a question in research related to the solar variability. But, did the Sun quit working for 350 years? Not likely. The noted text generates many questions, answers a great many and opens a totally new avenue to climate and astronomical research. But, you must read deeply to understand the underlying principle the text presents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the climate variability of the past few years is not made by Modern Man. Do you want a dose of global warming made by Modern Man? Earth is warming! Regardless of the cause, it is necessary to do whatever to mitigate the eventual state of the climate and our good living conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything that must be done is against our way of living. Tough measures will meat with high resistance.
The question is how can it be done with the least damage?
Why all the arguments and raised hackles, You are supposed to be scientists, that is the creature with a big brain that can do deep thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps I should elucidate what I meant by Modern Man's unique talent.
And, that is the ability to think in terms of:
“ Abstruse Abstract Thought. “
My dictionary describes abstruse as meaning: “ Remote from ordinary minds, difficult to be comprehended or understand, profound, recondite. . Hidden from mental perception by ordinary mentality. “ And I add: “ Combining broad and detailed analysis of abstract objects to elicit new concepts without reference to existing concepts. The concept of ideas for bringing order from nothingness. “ Conceiving something new not having a pedigree.
My dictionary describes abstract as meaning: “ Considered or thought of in itself; treated apart from any particular object. ” And, I add: “ A mental process using symbolic objects to arrive at meaningful conclusions. The mental processes where complex ideas are represented by symbolic objects manipulated within the mind to give real world meaning to a process or relationship. “
I am sure you have other thoughts on this concept.
Next thing for you to do is read my book: " The End of The Last Ice Age. " I should have ended the title with " All Ice Ages. " At least for the last few million years. www.omega-spacepublishingusa.com
Thank you,
Everette L. Wampler