Hi Dean,
even though you've not actually added anything new to your arguments, I'll give a full response. Hopefully, it'll jog someone else into responding to the substantive issues.

Issue 1: rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide lagging behind rises in temperature by 800-2800 years as shown by many different studies of antarctic ice cores.

>And then you quote Siegenthaler back at me as some sort of refutation (of Cuffey and vimeaux' work on deuterium levels).

There's nothing to refute. Cuffey and Vimeaux' work doesn't actually deal with the lag at all. As I quoted at the time.

Cuffey and Vimeux did not solve the lag, they only corrected the temperature derived from deuterium/hydrogen ratio, which gives a more sinusoidal curve for temperature changes (and a better correlation between CO2 and temperature), but it didn’t change the timing: CO2 starts to decline, some 1000 years after the temperature reached it’s minimum.

[Response:If it were indeed true that CO2 always lags temperature changes, never leads (which I don’t believe) then what you would have proved is that past analoges are of limited value to assessing the present warming, because in this case we do know that the forcing if (sic) from GHG’s, since we know the CO2 increase is anthro - William]

I've included the response given by one of the editors on the realclimate website so folk can get a taster of the upside down illogicality that passes for analysis there.

>1) The CO2 lag, by best scientific information currently available, doesn’t exist. But it might be considered contentious, if one is feeling gracious. So, for the sake of argument…

The paper by Siegenthaler et al I referenced last time we visited this aspect of the debate postdates Cuffey and Vimieux. They confirm the lag of 800-2800 years. I notice you are not referencing anything new to back up your statement. I'm not surprised though, as you don't have a leg to stand on with regard to this issue.

>The temperature change is relatively slow, but rises much more quickly once the CO2 rises.

Ah, so you do admit co2 rises after temperature after all. Good stuff. The temperature rise may be slow at first Dean, but it's a couple of thousand years ahead of the co2 all the way up. ;-)

>Some estimates put the CO2 contribution to the rise in these historical examples as high as 5/6.

The ability to miss the point is strong in some. Temperature leads, co2 follows. Yes, the additional greenhouse effect contributes to the overall rise (Though the increase in water vapour has far more effect than co2), but it's ensuing decline also lags drops in temperature by the same amount. The obvious implication is that there is a much stronger climate driver than co2 at work.

>Witness the Crowley paper, the abstract of which NOAA keeps on its website, and which you keep ignoring

That paper was written 9 years ago, and relies heavily on the utterly discredited Mann 'hockey stick' graph of global temperature. The IPCC have quietly dropped it from their more recent 'storylines' though they haven't reinstated the graph they used pre 1995 which shows that temperatures during the mediaeval optimum were higher than they are now. The historical record shows that in the C11th, grapes were ripening as far north as Newcastle. England. Thats the same latitude (55N) as the southern tip of mainland Alaska.

>Claiming that because other factors than CO2 can cause temperatures to rise somehow discounts that CO2 can cause temperatures to rise, is so logically absurd as to not need further comment. But I will anyway

Please show where I have said that or retract your buffoonery. I've demonstrated that co2 does contribute slightly to warming for you so many times I really shouldn't have to do it again, but I will anyway.

>And, as I have said, there is no CO2 lag, anyway.

Presumably in the hope that an oft repeated lie will somehow become accepted as the truth. Are you one of Gore's advisors?

>he’ll go off on a tangent about how poor a greenhouse gas CO2 is, or misrepresent how it takes such large amounts of it to cause any change.

It's not actually tangntial to a debate about the relative strengths of climate driving factors is it? Pretty central in fact. Please show how I have misrepresented the facts or retract your buffoonery.

Here are the facts:

From the current level of 380 ppm, it is projected to rise to 420 ppm by 2030.
The projected 40 ppm increase reduces emission from the stratosphere to space from 279.6 watts/m2 to 279.2 watts/m2. Using the temperature response demonstrated by Idso (1998) of 0.1°C per watt/m2, this difference of 0.4 watts/m2 equates to an increase in atmospheric temperature of 0.04°C.
Increasing the carbon dioxide content by a further 200 ppm to 620 ppm, projected by 2150, results in a further 0.16°C increase in atmospheric temperature.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.1°.

And here's the graph: This isn't some computer modelled output, it's the application of well known physical laws concerning the physics of gases.



Maybe this one is clearer:


>your insistance that temperatures have been falling in the Southern Hemisphere

They have been falling, and on a six month moving average are about the same as they were 20 years ago. Look.



>Likewise your views about the degree of temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere



On a six month moving average it's currently around 0.15C higher than it was 20 years ago.

Just for good measure and to forestall criticism of the dataset chosen, here's the Hansenitised NASA/GISS global land/sea graph for the same period. Twnty years ago it was 0.4C above baseline and now it's, err, 0.4C above baseline. Lol.



Meanwhile, atmospheric co2 has risen by 10% or so. How come temperatures have been stable in the north and falling in the south while man made co2 output has risen 20% over the last ten years if co2 is such a big deal as you say it is?

Finally, and just for fun, here's a plot of the global temp in red as seen by the UAH satellite, against the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as seen by PMOD in green. The temp is averaged over a half solar cycle and the TSI over one third of a cycle.

It'll be very interesting to see what happens to global temps next. My guess is they will be heading down further. I bet Gore is clutching his wad of carbon credits with a sweaty hand at the moment.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/19/2008 02:44:06 MDT.

By the way Dean, here are a few more of that minority of well qualified deniers for you. ;-)

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Jesus, Rog, I am tired of this. I am not wasting nearly as much time on research as I was at the beginning of this debate, because it has become pointless. On the other hand, I feel I must at least answer, because it would be rude not to.

First, I have never discussed hurricanes or mosquito-borne diseases , nor have I ever defended Al Gore. I am baffled by why you felt the need to post the list of random scientists that you did. I have already granted that dissenting opinions exist, though they are in the minority by a very large margin. Do you really want me to post a list of scientists that support global warming? It would be one hell of a list. Your post is a lovely mass-cut-and-paste from somewhere, though, just like your Heartland speech. I am sure that it is just as valid. :-)

I was going stop bringing up scientific consensus and peer-review, since I thought that you didn’t want to talk about it. (I wouldn’t blame you.) But if you do, just say so. Because if so, I’m still waiting on your list of organizations. As opposed to random statements from various scientists, which could well have been taken out of context.

I’ll stop now, and get back on track-

>>rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide lagging behind rises in temperature by 800-2800 years as shown by many different studies of antarctic ice cores.

Yes, many different studies, none of which attempted to make the correction that Cuffey and Vimeux did. All but one pre-date them. Regarding the exception:

>>The paper by Siegenthaler et al I referenced last time we visited this aspect of the debate postdates Cuffey and Vimieux. They confirm the lag of 800-2800 years.

If one mis-reads the paper one might assume that they "confirm" the lag. But they weren't trying to confirm the lag, never claimed that they had confirmed the lag, nor were they trying to do any sort of analysis that discounts Cuffey and Vimeux. They were trying to show that the trends already identified in one dataset held true over the larger dataset that their paper covers. The gist of their conclusions was that the CO2-deuterium relashionship in the EPICA *uncorrected* data appeared similar to that in the Vostok *uncorrected* data, and that thus the data sets are comparable. That's all they said. They made no attempt at a correction a la Cuffey and Vimeux, because they didn't need to to meet their goal. Nor do they claim that Cuffey and Vimeux are wrong, or in any way contradict their work. The fact that his paper postdates Cuffey and Vimeux is meaningless in this context. So, again, they aren't about the same thing. Find me the sentence in Siegenthaler where he says "Cuffey and Vimeux are wrong- there is a lag." You won't find it. They do mention a lag in that they make a "best fit" estimate for the lag in EPICA, but only by way of comparing it to the perceived and again *uncorrected* lag in Vostok. Their data analysis was, solely for simplicity's sake, identical to the analysis in all those papers that pre-date Cuffey and Vimeux.

I'm not referencing anything new, because I don't have to- my point stands.

>>Ah, so you do admit co2 rises after temperature after all. Good stuff.

You must be trying to get my goat or something, Rog. This is another example of selective interpretation on your part. :-) You will note that I said "The explanation for the lag *amongst the believers* works thusly:" I had already identified myself as a non-believer in the whole CO2 lag debate in a very definitive manner. I was merely pointing out that even those who agree with you on the lag (i.e. not me) still disagree with you on the anthropogenic issue.

I predicted your points about what a poor greenhouse gas CO2 is, didn't I? Why, after all, wouldn't I believe the weight of scientific opinion over your little, narrow graph? CO2 has more effect than it's own direct contribution. It leads to other secondary effects, like an increase in water vapor. Second, your first graph is very misleading. To get the effect of an increase from 280ppm to 380ppm you have to STACK all those bars, which equates to about an 0.4C change. Significant, even without any secondary effects. So, what your graph in fact shows is that there is a LINEAR RELATIONSHIP between temperature and CO2! (Once the initial logarithmic part that starts at zero is over). I have to read some more. Later...

And actually, I'm flexible on the CO2 lag thing. I can be convinced that you are right, Rog, so keep at it. (Especially since the lag has no bearing whatsoever on the current anthropogenic warming.) I have to do more reading. I readily admit that I have not been able to get my hands on the full text of the Cuffey and Vimeux paper, yet. I'm basing my points on discussions I have found on scientific forums, where the consensus seems to support the view I have put forth. And, I SURELY am not going to just take your word for it regarding what the paper shows, especially when it conflicts with everything else I've read about it. We have established that you and I often draw different conclusions when evaluating the same data. :-)

Anyway, more will follow if I can ever get my hands on the full paper.

I truly am done posting graphs back and forth about the nonexistant :-) temperature drops in the northern or southern hemispheres. We have both proven that we can produce data, though I still believe that mine is much better than yours. Just for the hell of it, though, take your graphs of temperatures two posts back and smooth them. See how they all slope UP? See how the little wiggle downward at the end is meaningless? Especially since the “temperature 20 years ago” that you keep referring to was on an up squiggle in two of three graphs! Now, retract your buffoonery.

Also, I'm a little puzzled, since you said:

>>I believe that global temperatures have been trending upwards in the past century or so...

An admittedly incomplete quote, for the sake of brevity, but I'm not trying to contest the rest of your statement. Also, you're talking about "6-month trends" which are pretty meaningless. We have both commented on the granularity of global temperature data, and pointed out how the graphs all squiggle up and down rather vigorously, as I did above just now. I maintain that we should examine longer-term trends than 6 months. So, we have conflicting data. I think mine is better; you think yours is better; there is no point in slinging it back and forth any more. It is repetitious and boring.

AHA!

While composing this I found myself in my hospital’s medical library and what did I see on the stacks? Nature! My library has a subscription. Not only that, but I can get on the Nature website from the library.

As I suspected, Cuffey and Vimeux is nothing like what Rog claims, and mush more like what I had read elsewhere. Their correction does not merely “smooth” the graphs, nor does it create a “sinusoid.” In fact, the graph remains quite jagged.

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. Here is the figure from the paper:



Note how the dotted line representing temperature and the solid line representing CO2 are coincident during the two displayed rapidly warming periods around 140,000 and 20,000 years BP. There is no lag. They state, but do not show a graph, that this holds true for the rest of the Vostok data (back to 420,000 years BP). The initial discrepancy they were interested in is the one near the CO2 and ΔTH labels, which did not correct perfectly. Thus, the better matching during warming periods was a serendipitous finding, and Rog cannot claim that this is a case of scientists manipulating the data to fit their assumptions.

If I may quote from their conclusions:

“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…
“A further result relevant to carbon-cycle studies is that much of the very long delay (10-15kr) and disproportionate magnitude of the CO2 decrease relative to the δD decrease during the last glacial inception is an artifact…
“Nonetheless, the correspondence of CO2 and temperature during the glacial inception was not as strong as during the last deglacial transition.”

>>The historical record shows that in the C11th, grapes were ripening as far north as Newcastle. England. Thats the same latitude (55N) as the southern tip of mainland Alaska.

And you accuse ME of missing the point? A hell of a lot more than latitude governs climate in England, Rog. The Gulf Stream is one big player there. And show me a valid criticism of Crowley, not some fiat statement that his model was flawed.

Post-call. Tired. Stopping now.

Edited by acrosome on 05/19/2008 12:14:18 MDT.

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 and wrap it up before then. :-)

Good work finding the Cuffey and Vimieux article in Nature, I didn't feel like shelling the $35 for the online article either. I'm going to respond to this one first, then mop up a few of the other odds and sods.

It's an interesting graph in several respects, first a couple of general observations;

1)At the temporal resolution of the graph, a lag of 600-2800 years isn't easy to spot on a timescale of 160,000 years crammed into 400 pixels or so. Nonetheless, I think you'll agree that the upper 3/4 of the temp rise at 140,000 years BP and the rise at 20,000 years BP clearly show the dotted line representing temperature to be to the right of the solid line representing co2 and therefore further in the past. With me so far?

At this resolution, 1 pixel represents 400 years, agreed?

The offset on these two rises varies between 1 pixel and 4 pixels as far as I can tell. So the lag between temperature starting to rise and co2 inreasing is still ~400-1600 years in these best case scenarios, and after Cuffey and Vimieux' 'correction' of the data.

Now you might think I'm splitting hairs here Dean, but a lag is a lag is a lag, and it determines the precedence of cause and effect, which in this debate is of no small moment. Temperature leads, co2 follows. Have you found anything in the paper which suggests Cuffey and Vimieux believe otherwise? The reason Siegenthaler et al don't address their reseach is because it doesn't conflict. 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. However, they were doing their best to make the right sort of soothing noises to get their paper past the reviewers and ensure continued funding for their research. ;-)



2) At the end of the interglacial which occurred ~120,000 years BP, the temperature falls a good 5,000 years or so before co2 does, not really covariant is it? When the temperature starts upward again around 110,000 years BP co2 starts upwards again too, though still with a lag, and then drops again whilst temperature continues to increase another 1/3 of a degree or so. Something other than co2 is driving all this QED.

3) Overall, the correlation is pretty good, and it shows that the planet and it's oceans absorb and outgas co2 readily, good news for plants, and therefore us, as long as it stays warm.

Now, onto a few specifics you raise.

>your first graph is very misleading. To get the effect of an increase from 280ppm to 380ppm you have to STACK all those bars, which equates to about an 0.4C change.

Yep, and that's why I also provided the second graph, with all the bars stacked. The first graph nicely demonstrates the logarythmic nature of the absorption of heat by co2. If you look at the graph again, you'll see that it isn't 0.4C attributable to anthropogenic co2 but 0.1C.
As I said many posts ago, the first 20 parts per million have as much greenhouse effect as the following 260ppm.
The latest data shows that the rate of co2 increase in the atmosphere has slowed since 2000 to around 1.5ppm/year. It'll be a looong time before we hit 500ppm, which won't happen anyway if temperatures start to fall of course. Even if the level does rise to 500ppm, it's way below the 1000ppm commercial greenhouse growers use to get great crop yields, and it'll help insulate us a bit from the ice age which is only just around the corner. Could start any time between around 5000 years in the future and tomorrow.

The tipping point we need to worry about isn't one that'll push us into some sort of mythical computer guessed runaway positive feedback global warming, but a combination of peaking long term solar cycles, a change in earth's magnetism, a large volcano and a hefty el nino which might tip us into runaway cooling. No doubt global cooling when it happens will be blamed on man made global warming... By the way, we're in the grip of a severe el nina, near solar minimum, just over the top of a 300 year solar cycle, and a very large volcano in chile which has been dormant for 9000 years has just smoked out parts of Argentina...

>the lag has no bearing whatsoever on the current anthropogenic warming

Whaat? The warming due to co2 is 0.1C since the start of the industrial revolution. There is no difference between 'anthropogenic co2' and 'natural co2' Dean, it's all made out of one part carbon, two parts oxygen. The carbon cycle absorbs nearly all co2 chucked into the atmosphere, whether it's from volcanoes or factory chimnies. The 0.039% that stays in the air fluctuates with temperature in close covariance. It get's colder, more co2 is absorbed by the oceans, it gets warmer, more co2 outgases from the oceans. Notice which way round this statement is and stop sticking the cart before the horse.

If you won't take it from me, listen to this guy:

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Still don't believe it? Look at the Mauna Loa co2 data below:



What do you think causes the annual up-down wiggle Dean? Is it the tenuous gas which makes up less than half a hundredth of a hundredth of our atmosphere doing it's own thing or is it the seasonal variation of the angle of incidence of radiation from the freckin great fusion reactor our planet orbits around? You know, that big yellow ball in the sky which can swing your local near surface air temperature 20C in a few hours from 92 million miles away? Unless it's cloudy because of increased water vapour in the troposphere of course.

>take your graphs of temperatures two posts back and smooth them

It's easy to smoothe the meaning out of data, witness the co2 graph above, not so easy to decide how long a trend should be before it can be called a trend. On that subject, please learn to differentiate between a moving average and a trend before you call me on graph interpretation or construction. Anyway, just for you, here's a smoothed graph for you to ponder.



This one shows sunspot count against temperature, smoothed at the length of the Hale cycle and treated to a fourier transformation or two. The wiggles don't line up perfectly, but are just suggestive enough of a correlation to be interesting. I won't take any crit from you for choosing to show this graph, because it's *my graph* I constructed it for my own reasons, to do my own research ok?

Edited to add co2 just for badness. See how co2 continues it's gentle upward plod while the solar activity and temperature dip for 10 years between 1960 and 1970? ;-)
Remember all those scary hockey stick graphs of ten years ago with the wicked curves in temp and co2 at the modern end. Well the temp curve is going down at the moment and the scary co2 curve on those alarmist gtaphs was changing anthropogenic co2 OUTPUT, not ATMOSPHERIC LEVEL of co2, the increase of which is pretty much linear as you can see from the Mauna Loa data, while solar output and global temp fluctuate up AND DOWN.

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Looking at this graph, and the exceptionally slow start to solar cycle 24, and the concerns of solar observers who say the activity level is dropping off the bottom of the scale, which way do you see temperatures going for the next few years?

"Place bets now!"

Fascinating stuff aint it? ;-)

P.S. Newcastle is on the east coast of England and cops for some of the Euroclimate in winter.

P.P.S. On the west coast, due to the gulf stream we have a few palm trees in Plocton, Scotland at 57N but they are affected by cold winters and there is natural variation in the gulf stream. It's for this sort of reason we can't take too much notice of Crowley; trees are affected by many other factors apart from temperature such as rainfall and soil erosion and so proxy data from bristle cone pines grafted onto thermometer records makes for badly interpreted graphs.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/20/2008 04:22:25 MDT.

>>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. :-)

Further...



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?

Me:
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.

Rog:
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.

Here goes...

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:

http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/cuffey_kurtm.html

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. :-)

Edited by acrosome on 05/20/2008 10:34:54 MDT.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.pdf?request-id=7bd5fab2-3b26-428b-aedb-db357b79ea5b

"A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared
data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two
groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays
causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed
global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None
has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative
evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle
change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in
the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."

At some point, one crosses from the appearance of concern-trolling to...concern trolling.

Dammit. I had that article in my pocket, waiting. (Though it really only addresses cosmic ray forcing via cloud cover.) Especially since Rog said:

>>The Royal society's paper is talking about solar irradiance, and takes no account of solar erruptivity. There is an important distinction here. Irradiance is the amount of heat given off by the sun. Erruptivity relates to the strength of the solar wind which wards off highly energetic particles entering the solar system from outside. There is recent research which suggests that these particles have much to do with cloud formation which in turn has strong effects on the earth's surface temperature.

I can't figure out what your last sentence is saying, though, Rick...

I'm particularly interested to see whatever graph Rog produces that limks insolation with the Vostok ice core temperature data. Also, I'd like to see the graph showing slowly increasing insolation over the last century, covariant with the slow increase in temperature. I'm sure he has the graphs squirreled away somewhere.

Edited by acrosome on 05/21/2008 01:59:08 MDT.

Hi Dean,

>Now, call me silly, but it sure looks like that solid CO2 line wriggles upwards before the dotted ΔT line.

Sure, I'll give you that one if you'll give me the half dozen or so other upswing trend reversals on the graph where the opposite is the case.

>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.

`I think this is most likely because the proponents of carbon dioxide driven global warming are keen, nay desperate, to find anything which can be interpreted in some way which will help shore up their house of cards.

>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.

To point out (again) a desperate flaw in your criticism, I have never said it did.

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.

Ah well, that's a different kettle of worms if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. I'm glad you accept that the solar influence is capable of driving climate phenomena many times bigger than the 0.4-0.8C rise we saw last century. Unfortunately, I can't return the favour, as Co2 hasn't lifted temps more than a couple of tenths of a degree in 500 years, and water vapour is responsible for keeping the planet cool in the form of clouds as much as it warms it in the form of ice particles in the stratosphere absorbing heat and radiating it downwards, or trapping heat near the surface as a lower troposheric haze.

Anyway, I think this is about as close as I'm going to get to reaching an amicable conclusion to the debate, so I'll leave it there. Thanks, sincerely, for the time and effort you've put in and lets leave a gentlemans bet running on the direction of temperature anomalies in the coming months. I'll revisit the thread if there are interesting developments either way.

Cheers

Rog

PS Rick, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The science of cloud modulation by incoming high energy particles is at an infant stage, but given the large effect planetary albedo has on temperatures, it's a line of investigation well worth pursueing, even though it has nothing to do with co2.

Some good news (depending on whether you grow grapes) for California. The 20 successive night frosts affecting vines this spring were the most severe since the 1970's.

Have a cool summer. :-)

Oh, hell no, Rog. I tried to bow out TWICE in the past, and you sucked me back in both times. I'm not letting you off now. :-)

Rog said:
>>I think this is most likely because the proponents of carbon dioxide driven global warming are keen, nay desperate, to find anything which can be interpreted in some way which will help shore up their house of cards.

Yet, you haven't produced a good rebuttal.

And if nothing else, Rog, you do amuse me. Isn't this like the pot calling the kettle black? How many weird little papers have the global warming deniers rallied around? And they do really pounce on the uncommon studies that seem to back them up (probably precisely because they are so few and far between, unless you count the ones that they TWIST into backing them up). As an example: the feeding frenzy about the Douglass, Christy, et al paper in the International Journal of Climatology a few months ago. (It turns out that their peer-reviewers weren't climatologists!) The same researchers published a similar paper a while back and it was so inconcievably bad that they quietly retracted it after a few months. They then narrowed the scope to produce their current results- never a good sign, and another example of going out looking for the obfuscatory data. Unsurprisingly, the paper came under immediate widespread criticism, not least of which that they seem to have intentionally chosen outdated models and data to "disprove", yet the anti-global-warming bloggers are digging in and producing profound defenses of the paper that basically amount to screaming "Aw, you guys don't know what your talking about!" And don't try to claim the Vast Environmental Conspiracy is behind it, Rog, because other papers that contradict the consensus are published without such immediate and universal criticism. (And I certainly know that you can produce them...) For some reason, the deniers just really WANT to defend this bad paper.

I said:
>>Witness the Crowley paper, the abstract of which NOAA keeps on its website...

Rog Replied:
>>That paper was written 9 years ago, and relies heavily on the utterly discredited Mann 'hockey stick' graph of global temperature.

"Utterly discredited," eh? You need to stop quoting buzzlines from the global-warming skeptics' blogs you frequent. Odd, then, that the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the Mann hockey-stick graph in 2006 and came out in support of it: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
Most of the criticisms were politically motivated. A certain global warming skeptic of a Senator named Joe Barton is responsible for some of the mess. The two most vocal critices were Ross (an economist) and Mcintyre (a mineral-exploration consultant). This is not to say that Mann was perfect. It turns out that Mann published an acknowledgement of the few valid criticisms against his work, but pointed out that correcting them does not alter his findings to any noticable degree. This letter is now included at the end of his 1999 paper on the Nature website. Since I have access to it via my medical library, I will quote from the 2006 Nature article about the NAS review, without editing, including the equivocations:
"The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. "This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed," he says, adding that he "would not be embarrassed" to have been involved in the work."
So, it seems that yout biggest criticism of Crowley just evaporated, too.

Rog said:
>>To point out (again) a desperate flaw in your criticism, I have never said it did.

Ok. I'll concede this if you concede that I never denied that solar forcing exists, and stop ranting at me as if I had.

Of course solar forcing is nontrivial. It probably drives ice ages (such as the current one). But one of the strongest mechanisms through which it does so is certainly CO2. (The same mechanism that the human race is currently using.) It is in no way all or even mostly direct forcing. And the glacial/interglacial cycles within the ice ages also show a strong CO2 covariance, as I have demonstrated over and over until my typing fingers bled.

You responded with that football analogy, about the ball flying through the goal thus causing the player to kick it into the goal. This is actually not a bad rebuttal- the cause/effect error has been made many times before. But as you have pointed out the scientific truth is that we KNOW that CO2 has a linear greenhouse effect- but not just through direct effects! (Another finger-bleeding example.) And the covariance is so STRONG, both historically and now, that it is very suggestive. I've never claimed PROOF, because proof is scientifically impossible, as you know. I just think that my position is better supported than yours.

Another of your points is that temperature cycles are a natural part of Earth's history. True indeed. But so are hurricanes (pardon the joke) and asteroid impacts. This is also the difference between dealing with climate change slowly 12,000 years from now versus catastrophically 100 or 200 years from now. I maintain that it is irresponsible to bet such high stakes against the weight of scientific consensus. The responsible thing is to do our best not to drive pCO2 above 1000ppm within the next 50 years. (Even discounting CO2 forcing, who would want to live in that world?)

Rog said:
>>absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

True. But absence of evidence sure as hell isn't evidence of evidence, either! Otherwise, obviously, we would all believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since there is an absence of evidence that he exists! :-P

And, dammit, stop bringing up odd local weather effects just to annoy me. The only reason it annoys me is that every time I read one, for a brief millisecond, I doubt your sanity. Then I realise that it's just another "wind up." Grapes! :-) We both know it is meaningless.

[Edited to remove smart-assedness.]

Look, Rog, God knows I'm tired of this debate, too. If you really want to call it quits, I'm with you. Hallelujah.

Thank you. I have learned a lot. (You have forced me to.)

Have a nice summer, Rog. Pack your swimsuit. :-)

Edited by acrosome on 05/21/2008 17:41:50 MDT.

Guys

Regardless of the merits of the cases presented by the two of you, may I compliment both of you for conducting this debate in a polite and professional manner.

Yes, I have been following the whole thread with interest, and both of you have increased my education. Thank you.

Cheers
Roger
PS: if you want to continue the debate, no worries, feel free.

Roger C: Thanks for the kind words, and I agree that although both Dean and I are argumentative cusses, who are able to stoop to all kinds of lowdown mean dirty tricks to try to get each other to say something really intemperate, the dabate has managed to avoid descending into a slanging match.

Now I'm going to try to have the last word. Lol.

Dean, pay attention I'm going to go through this one more time only. :-)

>Yet, you haven't produced a good rebuttal. (Of Cuffy and Vimieux' alleged solving of the co2-temp lag)

Yes I have, in the last post. Out of the upswing trend reversals on their deuterium corrected graph, the vast majority (9:1) confirm what I say. Temperature leads, co2 follows. Allowing for a 10% error in their findings (generous) This gives 75-25 in my favour or a clean sweep in my favour.

This is further evidenced by the modern Mauna Loa Co2 index:
The annual up-down swing is the signature of the sun-earth relationship. At perihelion, the earth recieves a good 8W/m^2 more energy from the solar insolation at the surface than at aphelion. Now which do you think is the more likely driver in the covariance? The sun making the southern oceans warm in the s. hemisphere summer so they outgas co2, or co2 going up and down of it's own accord and driving the earth round the sun? Cause and effect Dean. Obviously, the last time I explained this, My sarcasm and irony blinded you to the simple truth. Hopefully this time, you'll get the point. For the 30 years up to 1994 the rate of increase of co2 in the atmosphere was about 2ppm/year. Since then, it's dropped to around 1.5. Funnily enough solar activity has fallen off during this same period, and allowing for a lag of around 9-10 years for the inertia in the climate system, temperatures have started to drop off too, especially in the southern hemisphere which absorbs and stores the extra heat during their summer when the earth is closest to the sun at perihelion. The northern hemisphere is a net emitter of heat in all seasons, and now that the southern oceans have got cooler, we'll be getting more of the cold winters like the one we just had over the forthcoming years. Don't put that parka on gear swap yet...

***Meanwhile mankinds output of co2 has risen 15% or more***

Dean said:
>>Witness the Crowley paper, the abstract of which NOAA keeps on its website...

Rog Replied:
>>That paper was written 9 years ago, and relies heavily on the utterly discredited Mann 'hockey stick' graph of global temperature.

I also gave the reasons why, but you've ignored that. Tree ring growth is not a reliable proxy for temperature because of the other factors which affect it. And grafting such a proxy onto modern thermometer data gives a false impression of a stable climate suddenly becoming less stable. Apart from which, the bristle cone pines in question come from one location, and as I've been criticised for pointing out the 3C rise over 40 years in england in the 1700's as not being representative of global trends, I think it's fair to return the compliment. Dendroclimatology is a science with some lessons to learn about random sampling too.

>we KNOW that CO2 has a linear greenhouse effect-

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong.
The first 20 parts per million in the atmosphere adds around 1.5C to the global temperature. The next 260ppm does the same. If we see a rise in atmospheric level of another 620ppm from the level we are at now to 1000ppm it will add another 0.4C. At the current rate of increase of co2 in the atmosphere, which hasn't risen at anything like the rate of mankinds emissions by the way, that will take another 450 years all things being equal.

>And the covariance is so STRONG, both historically and now, that it is very suggestive.

But it's effect on temperature is WEAK, and anyway, the covariance wasn't all that strong between 1940-1970 was it?
Like the temperature anomaly was going one way and co2 was going the other. ;-)

>And the glacial/interglacial cycles within the ice ages also show a strong CO2 covariance, as I have demonstrated over and over

The fact that higher temperatures cause co2 to outgas from the oceans and 'covary' (always behind) doesn't make co2 any stronger at driving climate. And anthropogenic additions are vanishingly tiny in terms of atmospheric content and effect. And the fact that co2 carried on rising during the period 1940-1970 while the global temperature went down demonstrates how weak it is at forcing climate.

>I just think that my position is better supported than yours.

The Bishops told Galileo that too. the truth is, there are top scientists in positions of high importance at the head of major institutions who will tell you that the science is anything but settled. However, because of the strong ethical and political and economic dimensions to the picture that has been painted by the U.N.'s IPCC 'storylines' the issue has become strongly polarised, and the battle lines have run amok over the normal dispassionate and rational way scientific work should be conducted. This is not good, and middle ground needs to be found asap. I propose we start from a baseline of assuming the global warming we have seen over the last century of between 0.4 and 0.8C depending on whose figures you use is 50/50 GHG and solar and start working together on the science again. We also need to take a leaf out of the books of many other branches of human endeavour and seperate the control of the data from the biased interests of partisan protagonists.

>The responsible thing is to do our best not to drive pCO2 above 1000ppm within the next 50 years.

This we can agree on, but the policy makers are being convinced to make drastic changes to peoples lives on the basis of people like Jim Hansen telling them that 360ppm is a dangerous level. That is absurd and unsupportable.

> Pack your swimsuit

I travel light and go skinny dipping. It's a pity the Jim Hansens of this world can't join in and admit they are bare-assed, 'cos the emporer ain't got no clothes. ;-)

Now, the gentlemans bet: I predict the temperature will fall by around 0.2C over the next decade wiping out half of the global warming panic as the cool phase of the pacific decadal oscillation kicks in, assisted by a weaker solar cycle 24. We'll get another strong La Nina next year and a weak El Nino in 2011-2012 will revive temps a little before they plunge after 2014.

So come on, what temperature change do you predict and why?

Cheers

Rog

Edited by tallbloke on 05/22/2008 05:36:01 MDT.

Hi, Rog,

I haven’t taken the time to respond, but feel obligated, especially since you’re taking your energies elsewhere.

Referring to Rog’s post 5/07 9:29


In your post, the graph titled “Hansen et al 1988 Projections” includes a plot of annual GISS surface temps and a plot of annual RSS Sat. (satellite). The plot labeled RSS Sat. (which ”to your eye is in closer agreement with HadCrut temps”) is not supported by the RSS data. Contrary to the graph, the RSS data indicates an increase in 2007 lower and mid trop. temperatures. I’m sure that you would prefer to remove the errant graph from a post with your name.

That errant graph (of annual data) is then compared to a graph plotted with HadCRUT monthly data. Written boldly on the HadCRUT graph is the downward change in temp. of .595C between 1/07 and 1/08. The HadCRUT3 data supports the .632C number for 1/07, but it does not support the .037 number for 1/08. Rather the data shows a 1/08 number of .056. Lack of attention to detail can influence perceptions, Rog.

Then, suddenly, two more undocumented graphs (I know that they say “Data provided by NSIDC…”, but the last graph said HadCRUT.) showing Northern and Southern Hemispheric sea ice area, apparently to corroborate your “hunch” that long-term temperatures are on their way down. NSIDC has a regularly updated site with some interesting analysis that provides a context to those and other graphs. Their Arctic analysis of new ice/old ice, thin ice/thick is worth a short read. The analysts are not as optimistic as you regarding the reversal of the long downward trend in arctic sea ice.

I was under the impression that the increasing Antarctic sea ice is expected, confounding no one, not even the models.

Referring to Rog’s post 5/15, 1:23 quoting James Hansen

It’s telling that Hansen talks so openly about the process of temperature interpolations. There is more information about the calculations and methods and stated uncertainties here. I haven’t read an analytical critique of the calculations. Have you?
Also, Plate A 1 on page 46 of the paper relates to GISS/HadCRUT differences.


The Arctic represents roughly one per-cent of the planets surface area, but since arctic temperatures are more sensitive to planetary warming than mid and tropical latitudes, their measurement, or estimate, if you like, seems appropriate to the task of calculating earth’s temperature. Observations indicate that Arctic land and ocean temperatures are rising faster than most areas on earth; why laugh at a scientific method of calculating them? This graph isolates the contribution of arctic temperatures to global average. Anecdotally, how much energy did it take to melt all that ice last year?

Dean, Rog,

At the risk of inspiring a Dean/Rog tag team,I'd like to take the position that the lag/no lag,or CO2 leads or follows temperatures debate, has little consequence.

No one doubts the direct relationship between CO2 levels and relatively warm global temperatures. No one doubts that the atmosphere increases earth's temperature by 33 degrees C, or about 90 degrees F. No one doubts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it is responsible for around 20% of the preindustrial greenhouse effect. Despite the decreasing marginal effect of each additional molecule of atmospheric CO2, no one doubts that atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, past the preindustrial level of 280 ppm +/-, indeed past the current level of 380ppm +/-, will continue to be effective as greenhouse warmers.

No one doubts that, all else equal, (sans feedbacks) a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial 280 to 560 would increase the global temperature by appx. 1 degree C. Most skeptics or denialists use the phrase "about one" to answer this question. The number that I often see from believers is 1.1 -1.2 degrees C. I assume that the latter is generally accepted.

Also, no one doubts that given ocean/land/atmosphere equilibrium, warmer ocean will out gas CO2.

So, let's contemplate an orbitally induced increase in net insolation (eccentricity) and an orbitally induced regional increase in polar insolation (obliquity, no global net change). Slowly warming high latitude waters would out gas CO2 to the atmosphere, increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2, increase the warming effect of the atmosphere, (more atmospheric water vapor as well) and compound the effect of the solar forcing. The warming effect of the increased atmospheric CO2 would constitute a "feedback" of the initial solar forcing.

Now, lets contemplate a sequence of El Ninos, combined with an arbitrary shift in ocean currents, that causes prolonged mid-latitude drought and subsequent fires that release a giga ton of carbon into the atmosphere. The increased atmospheric CO2 increases the greenhouse warming effect, warming the surface and the oceans, increases oceanic out gassing of CO2 to the atmospphere, increases evaporation and atmospheric water vapor, and "forces" a global temperature increase.

Now, substitute human fossil fuel burning and the emission of five to seven giga tons of carbon into the atmosphere for the prolonged period of naturally occurring forest fires.

It appears that CO2 is capable as a radiative forcing and as a radiative feedback. I understand that this is simplistic, but the direct and symbiotic, egg/hen relationship between CO2 and global temps and climate seems to transcend the lag/lead question.

I agree that the resolution of any "lag" contributes to the understanding of the earth's carbon cycle, but lead, lag, or follow, the radiative effect of atmospheric CO2, and it's direct relationship with, and its direct and indirect effects on global temperatures is part of the sixth grade science curriculum.

Hi Skots,

Temp series:

I simply meant that both HADcru and RSS have peak temps since 2000 lower than 1998 whereas GISS (the hot one:-) shows them as higher. Visually, this makes quite a difference. Here's a comparison of the three series on a 12 month moving average from 1980:


>Contrary to the graph, the RSS data indicates an increase in 2007 lower and mid trop. temperatures.

Maybe you need to post a graph, because I'm not seeing what you're saying.



>two more undocumented graphs (I know that they say “Data provided by NSIDC...

And your problem is? Sorry, but this looks like nitpicking to me. This is an internet banter forum, not a scientific papers pre submission office.

>Your “hunch” that long-term temperatures are on their way down.

And what's your hunch? Come on, get off that high horse and join the gentlemans bet. :-)

>The analysts are not as optimistic as you regarding the reversal of the long downward trend in arctic sea ice.

Well we'll have to wait and see whether my hunch is better than their hunch won't we.

>The Arctic represents roughly one per-cent of the planets surface area

So, about 5.1 million km^2 then. And Jim hansen calculates the interpolated data for the arctic using a 1200km radius from stations. I asked you how many stations Jim has in the arctic, well since a circle of 1200km radius covers 4.5 million km^2, I guess that's not many at all then. Lol.

>Observations indicate that Arctic land and ocean temperatures are rising faster than most areas on earth; why laugh at a scientific method of calculating them?

See above. But anyway, I think you'll find it's minimum temperature that have been rising in the northern hemisphere mostly, rather than maximum temperatures, and this is due largely to heating of the oceans further south. Arctic ice melts from underneath in the main, so that's why I expect to see a reversal in the trend. The southern oceans have been cooling for several years, and the effect is working it's way north.

>how much energy did it take to melt all that ice last year?

Lots. But remember, it's the sun that supplies energy, not co2, and although co2 is on the increase, the sun isn't. Did you notice NASA has postponed the expected date for solar minimum? Again. ;-)

>the radiative effect of atmospheric CO2, and it's direct relationship with, and its direct and indirect effects on global temperatures is part of the sixth grade science curriculum.

yes, and it's delivered in a biased way too.

Most of the rest of this post reads like a plot for a disaster movie, have you considered teaming up with Al Gore for a sequel? :-)

The truth is, the earth has some pretty good negative feedback systems for dealing with strong variations in climate, whether internally or externally forced, which are capable of counterbalancing the effects of co2, increased insolation etc. One of the principle ones is albedo, and we're currently at a low level of understanding concerning it.

Warmer temperatures mean more water vapour in the atmosphere, means more clouds, and more clouds shade the surface from direct solar radiation, and reflect heat back into space.

The most important word Skots used in his post was equilibrium, and our planet is pretty good at finding it, even if it's at the bottom or top of the range which alternates between ice age and 22C. It's been doing it for 3.5 billion years, and mankinds puny contribution to atmospheric co2 isn't about to change that.

How well do the computer models account for things such as varying albedo as a negative feedback? They don't.

"The Earth’s orbit and obliquity change with time (over thousands of years), sometimes forming a nearly perfect circle, and at other times stretching out to an orbital eccentricity of 5% (currently 1.67%). The total insolation remains almost constant but the seasonal and latitudinal distribution and intensity of solar radiation received at the Earth’s surface also varies.[5] For example, at latitudes of 65 degrees the change in solar energy in summer & winter can vary by more than 25% as a result of the Earth’s orbital variation. Because changes in winter and summer tend to offset, the change in the annual average insolation at any given location is near zero, but the redistribution of energy between summer and winter does strongly affect the intensity of seasonal cycles. Such changes associated with the redistribution of solar energy are considered a likely cause for the coming and going of recent ice ages"

here's the graph:

No Need to worry about extremes of eccentricity or obliquity anytime soon then. Phew! that's a relief!

Edited by tallbloke on 05/22/2008 13:50:29 MDT.

"[Edited to remove smart-assedness.]"

Man, there's going to be a lot of editing needed in this thread then!

Hi, Rog,

Providing the chart of atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa as evidence that temperature leads the summertime out gassing of southern ocean CO2 is interesting. From your explanation, I understand that the seasonal annual increase of some 8w/m2 TSI, caused by the Earth’s eccentric orbit around the sun, causes the southern oceans to warm, and causes them to out-gas CO2. During the next six months, when southern hemisphere surface TSI falls by some 8w/m2, the southern oceans cool, and most of the CO2 stays airborne, while some of the CO2 returns to the cooling oceans. And the process repeats itself, year after year.

If your figures regarding the annual increase of 2ppm of atmospheric CO 2 are correct, and if TSI is driving the trend, I would expect an equally regular annual increase in TSI over this same period. Does the TSI data support that expectation? I was under the impression that TSI stayed relatively constant over the last half of the 1900’s and had, as you say, “recently fallen”. How does the relatively stable, but pronounced upward sloping curve in this graph index to temperatures over the last forty years? Given internal variability, the last thirty years of temperatures index nicely, but what about the temps from 1967,68 to 1976 to 77? Taking your lag period into account, they should be increasing, too. How does the temperature increase during the early part of this century index to CO2 increases of the same time? Does CO2 show a stable sensitivity to temperature rise?

Is this out gassing of ocean CO2 responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850? If so, how do you account for the decrease in the C13/C12 isotopic ratios measured in the atmosphere and the surface ocean. Where is “that carbon isotope” (produced by burning fossil fuels) coming from?

Why does the warming period from 1000 to 1200 not show a similar increase in atmospheric CO2?

Does the southern ocean temperature record reflect the six-month cycle of warming implied in your presentation? Again, I was under the impression that a temperature signal for this annual increase in insolation hadn’t been recognized. This out-gassing would indicate a high CO2 solubility/temperature sensitivity. Do observations and research reflect this hyper-sensitivity?

Do you suspect another solar connection to CO2 out-gassing?
Who are your references?
Are you taking the mickey, Rog?

Edited by skots on 05/22/2008 22:11:24 MDT.

This can't be good.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004431933_webacidocean22m.html

The acidified water upwelling along the coast today was last exposed to the atmosphere about 50 years ago, when carbon-dioxide levels were much lower than they are now. That means the water that will rise from the depths over the coming decades will have absorbed more carbon dioxide, and will be even more acidic.

"We've got 50 years' worth of water that's already left the station and is on our way to us," study co-author Hales said. "Each one of those years is going to be a little bit more corrosive."

Hi, Rog,


The first two graphs from your 5/07/08 post at 9:29 are not supported by the data. The RSS data indicates that the trend line in the first graph should move upwards in 2007. The HadCRUT 3 data indicates that Jan 08 temperature anomaly in the second graph should read .56. Consequently, the figure that indicates the temp. difference between 1/07 – 1/08, is also incorrect.

>” asked you how many stations Jim has in the arctic”

I don’t know the number, but I’m still waiting, through the sound of your laughter, for a critique of the methods.


>” Arctic ice melts from underneath in the main, so that's why I expect to see a reversal in the trend. The southern oceans have been cooling for several years, and the effect is working it's way north.”

How much colder than Arctic waters are those southern ocean waters that are working their way north to cool off those Arctic waters?

>” But remember, it's the sun that supplies energy, not co2, and although co2 is on the increase, the sun isn't.”

Denying the radiative effect of CO2 is futile, Rog.

>” the earth has some pretty good negative feedback systems… . One of the principle ones is albedo”

I’m assuming that you’re talking about cloud albedo here. Do you have any other systems in mind?

>” Warmer temperatures mean more water vapour in the atmosphere, means more clouds, and more clouds shade the surface from direct solar radiation, and reflect heat back into space.”

Not necessarily. Clouds could be fewer and heavier, and quicker from formation to rained out. Regional climate changes could also dictate changes in cloud formation that would result in larger areas of the globe with fewer clouds. The incidence of upper level clouds, diffuse to incoming short wave radiation, but opaque to outgoing long wave radiation may increase, causing an additional warming effect.

>” our planet is pretty good at finding it (equilibrium) It's been doing it for 3.5 billion years”

There have certainly been a large number of climate equilibriums in the planet’s history, but we, and our infrastructures, are tenuously bound to the Holoscene equilibrium. Wishing on clouds again….

Thanks for posting the Milankovich graphs.