>>Heh, OK Dean, you got me, I slipped a couple of wind ups in because I knew you wouldn't be able to resist, and I didn't want you to be away for a month. We both need to summarise [sic] and wrap it up before then. :-)
Curse you, Rog. Curse you.
I will limit myself to responding to only one of your "wind ups," then, so that any non-science observers aren't confused...
You know damned well that this is what I meant by "smoothing the graph", you sly little minx. :-)
Now that I have that out of my system, by all means I agree- let's stop discussing Al Gore, hurricanes, mosquito-born diseases, English jurisprudence, Micronesian littoral flora, etc. If I may summarize something?
FOR THE RECORD:
I believe that global temperature averages have been trending upwards in the past century or so due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas production. I acknowledge that the precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to these rising temperatures is not well established (i.e. it has big error bars) but it IS statistically significant.
FOR THE RECORD:
I believe that global temperatures have been trending upwards in the past century or so mainly because of increased solar activity. I acknowledge that human activity including CO2 emissions may have contributed to this warming, and that one day we may be able to properly quantify that contribution or at least approximate it, but I confidently expect it will turn out to be a relatively small factor in comparison to the solar influence.
So it seems that if we cut away all the superfluous drivel that has distracted us, Rog, we are disagreeing on insolation vs. anthropogenic GHGs as the cause of current warming. Agreed? If so then by all means let us proceed from there, with a more limited discussion on this one root issue of contention.
Among other things, I would suggest that counting pixels on a graph of a scale like the one I found in the Cuffey and Vimeux paper is just inviting distortion. But if you want to do it, here goes... Here is a zoom of the graph at the 140kyr BP warming:
Recall that the present is to the left. Now, call me silly, but it sure looks like that solid CO2 line wriggles upwards before the dotted ΔT line. The fact that they later cross doesn't mean much beyond perhaps implying that the relationship is not 1:1.
Further, I am in no way denying that there is an anomaly at the 120kyr BP cooling on the Cuffey chart. Anomalies will happen. This one glaring oddity from all of that data is, in fact, what Cuffey and Vimeux were most interested in, and they still didn't explain it completely. As I said, there are certainly CO2 discrepancies in all of these various paleoclimatic data. Given the enormous uncertainties (for continental configurations, ocean currents, amount of volcanism, etc.) in reconstructing these records, it would be suspicious and surprising if there were NOT such mismatches. Reconstructing ancient carbon cycles is really hard to do and climate models using these proxy data are unfortunately our best bet. Most scientists working on this do conclude, however, that there is a reasonable 1st order approximation between CO2 and climate. Is this yet another example of your desperate clinging to the outliers? :-)
And nonetheless, after their correction, on a whole the covariance is very good. In the original Vostok analyses r = 0.64. Cuffey and Vimeux do their correction and, voila, r = 0.89.
This is what we in scientific circles call a damned elegant solution.
In fairness, here is a zoom of the 20kyr BP warming, at approximately the same scale:
Those lines look coincident to me, within any reasonable accuracy. But if you insist upon this trivial "CO2 lag" and want to average this graph and the prior graph, the average will come out approximately coincident.
So, that criticism about merely making the curves "more sinusoidal" that you cut and pasted out of a forum on RealClimate doesn't seem to hold water. (Especially since the comment forum closed immediately after that comment, so no one could respond to him.) And, on the same forum they mention that the hockeystick model is contentious, not disproven as you have insisted.
Back to Cuffey and Vimeux...
They further did a phase shift analysis:
The spike at zero shows that "the probability of... error is negligible" and "strongly suggests that [Cuffey and Vimeux's correction] contains meaningful climate information."
>>As the quote I gave earlier says, they did a great job tightening up the correlation, but didn't 'disprove the lag'. I don't think they were even trying to, from what I can make of the extract.
Jesus, Rog, but you truly like to repeat something I've said back at me as if I hadn't said it, don't you? Evidently you think that it proves something. Here's what I said:
>>Cuffey and Vimeux actually started out by trying to explain a discrepancy in the covariance of CO2 and δD during a period of COOLING about 120,000 years BP. Their corrections worked wonderfully- as I have mentioned Cuffey won an award for the work- but it actually corrected the covariance even better for periods of WARMING.
To answer your question, Cuffey and Vimeux do not literally say “the lag is a myth.” That would be unscientific. By way of saying it in a more scientific manner, I quote from their paper (again):
"Our results give strength to the conclusion that CO2 is an important climate forcing on the modern Earth, irrespective of whether other factors are more important on very long geologic timescales. Further, our results strengthen the hypothesis that the long-term synchrony of glacial-interglacial cycling between Northern and Southern Hemispheres is due to greenhouse-gas variations, and feedbacks associated with them…"
If you want a literal quote to the effect that “the lag is a myth” you have to find a more informal source, such as the citation speaker at Cuffey’s award presentation:
Cuffey and Vimeux’s results are widely regarded as a strong rebuttal of the CO2 lag, despite the fact that it wasn’t what they set out to prove. If anything, this serendipity lends them a bit more weight, since it cannot be claimed that they were manipulating data to fit preconceived conclusions.
You are correct, Siegenthaler’s incomplete analysis does not conflict with the prior incomplete analyses that predate Cuffey and Vimeux. :-) I reiterate that Siegenthaler was not trying to refute Cuffey and Vimeux, and never claimed to. All he wanted to do was prove that EPICA and Vostok data were equivalent. Again, I don’t add anything new because my point stands.
Now, for my moment of sinking to a really low level…
To point out a desperate flaw in your logic: The fact that the sun influences global temperature does not mean that greenhouse gases don’t. More succinctly, even if insolation drives ice ages, which it may, this does not mean that anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren’t causing modern global warming.
I have tried to explain this point several times in the past, so now I am reduced to this absurd simplification, because this self-evident truth is apparently lost on you. The reverse is true, of course. However, I never claimed that the sun does not influence temperature significantly, and your diatribe to that effect that I did is both misleading and puerile. (Sorry, Rog, but I have to call this one like I see it. Either that, or you were just trying to get my goat again. Which seems possible, since you rarely use such a mocking tone in seriousness.) What I claimed was that the current warming trend is better explained by GHG forcing than by solar forcing- which I am willing to debate.
Also, I am impressed by the chutzpah of a man who says “The wiggles don't line up perfectly, but are just suggestive enough of a correlation to be interesting.”, after analyzing pixels on the Cuffey and Vimeux graph. :-)
Please forgive me for not searching back through the posts- but can you post your modern solar forcing sources again in a bit less disjointed a fashion? I would, seriously, like to read them, because right now I’m not understanding what you are presenting in any coherent fashion. Among other things, I had thought that no correlation has been established with respect to cosmic ray forcing in paleoclimatology. If this premise is not established then nothing much can be said about what’s going on NOW during our unsupervised perilous experiment with Earth’s climate. (Pardon my plaigiarism of a great line.)
Sorry if I haven’t addressed every one of your points, Rog. I plead limited time right now. And I know that you would like to “wrap it up” soon, but I think that is an unrealistic goal, if by “wrapping it up” you mean that you and I come to some sort of consensus. :-) Also, I’m going to start a period with ridiculously little spare time soon. I have a family trip planned to Normandy this weekend and then I start a pretty intensive work schedule lasting essentially the entire month of June. I may not have time to bathe every day, let alone give you the attention that you crave. :-)