State of the Union - Climate change?

[shunyadragon]

Yes Shuny, but as we have all seen over time - you seldom know what you are talking about and fancy yourself as an academic - which you are not.

I have degrees and Licencing in Geology. I worked as a Professional Soil Scientist and Geologist for many years. I have published articles on Soil Science and Geomorphology of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.What are you basing your assertions on?

[Jonathandavid]

I'm sorry Jonathan that just isn't correct. We were much cooler during the ice age until about 12,000 years ago. 5,000 years ago we were warmer than that, then we were cooler for a while, and then warmer, and warmer again in the last few centuries.

While it is true that the Older and Younger Dryas are counted as part of the Weichsel, they follow the deglaciation and were not global events; deglaciation has not been a singular warming trend. I don't dispute that the climate is warmer now than during the last glacial maximum, but it is a fact that climate change has not been a warming trend since then, which you actually admit now, too. So we have not been trending warmer since the last ice age, because there have been interruptions of cooling, like the 8.2 event.

The holocene has not seen a millenial scale warming trend that has persisted since the last ice age.

Well I'm not sure we understand all the possible variables.

And I'm not sure that the earth is round. You're using the argument of personal incredulity.

[Truthseeker]

Since quiz time!

Here is the correlation between historic CO2 level and historic global temperature as measured in Antarctic ice cores.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]177[/ATTACH]

One "obvious" implication of the AGW theory is that large increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will in time lead rises in the average global temperature. IOW the temperature rises/falls should lag the CO2 concentration rises/falls. Sometimes the graph does show that. But sometimes not. By eyeball inspection, it seems as though the lags are less than the leads.

[HMS_Beagle]

One "obvious" implication of the AGW theory is that large increases in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will in time lead rises in the average global temperature. IOW the temperature rises/falls should lag the CO2 concentration rises/falls. Sometimes the graph does show that. But sometimes not. By eyeball inspection, it seems as though the lags are less than the leads.

The sometimes small reversals were found to be caused by heat transfer between the northern and southern hemispheres due to deep ocean circulation.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciationlink to full paper

From the paper:

"Global temperature reconstructions and transient model simulations spanning the past century and millennium have been essential to the attribution of recent climate change, and a similar strategy would probably improve our understanding of glacial cycle dynamics. Here we use a network of proxy temperature records that provide broad spatial coverage to show that global temperature closely tracked the increase in CO2 concentration over the last deglaciation, and that variations in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) caused a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres, supporting an early hypothesis that identified potentially important roles for these mechanisms. ."

I'll explain more if the paper is too technical.

[One Bad Pig]

Each block is 10,000 years. The temperature at the beginning of the block dipped slightly as did the CO2 level, but at the end (now) they are both going up. The CO2 level dramatically so.

Yeah, it only took over 5,000 years for "temperature" to respond to "CO₂ level changes. I suspect that some factor is not properly being accounted for in that graph.

The original chart was one for the Antarctic only. Here's a greatly expanded scale of the last 150 years showing CO2 vs. overall global temperature.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]178[/ATTACH]

Well, the last 150 years less the last 10. Let's see an expanded range, in both directions, so we can ensure the data hasn't been cherry-picked to show what people want to see.

Try again. What effect do you think the 400 ppm CO2 level will have on the average temperature?

In theory, it would go up somewhat. How much remains to be seen. What else changes when CO₂ levels change? The Earth's ecosystem is extraordinarily complex; a direct correlation between CO₂ level and temperature is rather unlikely. A doubling of CO₂ levels hasn't come close to doubling the effect of the sun on the Earth (IIRC without any global warming, we'd be at a balmy 288 K). And last I checked, atmospheric CO₂ comes from burning fossil fuels, which were once plants, which got their carbon from. . . the atmosphere.

Now, I'm all for minimizing pollution, but let's not self-righteously cripple our economy while buying cheap iPads from China where pollution is endemic.

[Truthseeker]

The sometimes small reversals were found to be caused by heat transfer between the northern and southern hemispheres due to deep ocean circulation.

That is not clear, even after I read the rest of your post. Perhaps you should reword or restate.

From the paper: ...........I'll explain more if the paper is too technical.

But then we can't be sure local temperature trends closely track global temperature trends--but what does the paper say about the areas of the earth are the proxies supposed to be valid? I mean exactly where and how broad?

[HMS_Beagle]

That is not clear, even after I read the rest of your post. Perhaps you should reword or restate.

What part didn't you understand?

But then we can't be sure local temperature trends closely track global temperature trends--but what does the paper say about the areas of the earth are the proxies supposed to be valid? I mean exactly where and how broad?

Have you read the paper yet?

[Paprika]

The original chart was one for the Antarctic only. Here's a greatly expanded scale of the last 150 years showing CO2 vs. overall global temperature.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]178[/ATTACH]

Where are the uncertainty ranges?

[HMS_Beagle]

Where are the uncertainty ranges?

They generally aren't shown on comparison graphs like that, only the mean values.

The same data with a slightly different axis labels is provided here by the Woods Hole Research Center.

1939-4551-4-7-121-1.jpg

The temperature data is from the NOAA National Climate Data Center. CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory atmospheric research facility and CDAIC ice core samples. Their web sites should have info on the error ranges.

[Paprika]

They generally aren't shown on comparison graphs like that, only the mean values.

The same data with a slightly different axis labels is provided here by the Woods Hole Research Center.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]184[/ATTACH]

The temperature data is from the NOAA National Climate Data Center. CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory atmospheric research facility and CDAIC ice core samples. Their web sites should have info on the error ranges.

All right. My concern is that the blue and other lines drawn on the graph are not the only graphs allowed by the data, because of the error range.

[HMS_Beagle]

All right. My concern is that the blue and other lines drawn on the graph are not the only graphs allowed by the data, because of the error range.

What makes you think the Woods Hole Research Center, NOAA, and/or Mauna Loa Observitory are producing deliberately misleading graphs? That's a pretty serious charge. Do you have any evidence of such professional malfeasance?

[Paprika]

What makes you think the Woods Hole Research Center, NOAA, and/or Mauna Loa Observitory are producing deliberately misleading graphs? That's a pretty serious charge. Do you have any evidence of such professional malfeasance?

I have not made such a charge. Kindly do not accuse me of such nonsense.

[seer]

Maybe not for you personally but it's going to screw over a few billion people elsewhere when the trend keeps going.

Gotta love those "why should I care when my wing of the plane isn't on fire!" types.

Well no, if 1.5 deg F change over a century hasn't cause any real harm then why should we expect any real harm going forward.

[HMS_Beagle]

I have not made such a charge. Kindly do not accuse me of such nonsense.

You certainly insinuated it. Sadly it's a common response from AGW deniers as well as evolution deniers when presented with scientific data they don't like - accuse the scientists of fraud through the deliberate cherry picking of results. It's a cowardly and repugnant practice.

[shunyadragon]

I have not made such a charge. Kindly do not accuse me of such nonsense.

It sure sounds like t to me you are making the charge hat they are manipulating the data to make it fit.''

All right. My concern is that the blue and other lines drawn on the graph are not the only graphs allowed by the data, because of the error range.