CO2 lags Temperatures in Vostok Ice Cores. Please help me understand this.

[blizzard1024]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how CO2 can be a global thermostat mainly

through feedbacks (water vapor and to a lesser extent ice albedo in NH) looking

at the Vostok Ice Cores. The lag of anywhere of 400 to 1000 years from the temperature

is troubling to me. Even if it is on the low end (that is 400 years), this means that CO2 goes up

for a minimum of 400 years and yet the Earth cools. Then once CO2 begins to

drop it then "regains" its prominence through feedbacks and dominates. Then

CO2 continues to fall, yet the ice cores shows warming until CO2 finally

starts to rise. Then the feedback dominates again. It is well known that

the forcing of the Milankovitch orbital variations is not enough to explain

the ice age cycles. You need feedbacks. It is well known that the warming

is rapid out of an ice age, with slow cooling until you reach the glacial maximums.

To me it seems the ice albedo feedback is more logical because it takes

a very long time to build NH ice sheets hence the slow cooling. BUT once

an ice sheet starts to melt...it is rapid since the elevation of the ice dome

drops which leads to warming...less upslope precip...less snowfall etc...and lower albedo.

One can easily see how ice sheets once they reach a point can rapidly

collapse (when I say rapidly I mean about 10,000 years vs 80 thousand

years to build or so). CO2 is also a feedback but is it really the dominate one?

The colder and warmer oceans vary in their outgassing of CO2 which in turn dictates

how much CO2 is in our atmosphere (before human influences). It is interesting

to note that Argon levels in the ice cores mirror CO2 levels and the temperature

pattern too and it is not an infrared active gas. Methane also mirrors temperature

and it is a greenhouse gas...but for some reason has been falling lately despite

warming.

I am having trouble understanding how you have a thermostat for our climate

i.e CO2...which does not account for all the changes in temperature at the critical

points in the ice age cycles. Something else dominates over it...I believe

it is the building of ice on the NH continents which affects albedo.

Anyone have a better proof that CO2 is our thermostat? The scientific community

is convinced of this. I want to understand it. It just seems inconsistent that

CO2 dominates only during the rising and falling temperature limbs in the ice core

data but does not initiate the changes. Whatever initiates the changes I would think

is the dominate forcing in the ice age cycles. It is hard to understand how this

can otherwise be. Please share your thoughts. I am all ears.

[TerryM]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how CO2 can be a global thermostat mainly

through feedbacks (water vapor and to a lesser extent ice albedo in NH) looking

at the Vostok Ice Cores. The lag of anywhere of 400 to 1000 years from the temperature

is troubling to me. Even if it is on the low end (that is 400 years), this means that CO2 goes up

for a minimum of 400 years and yet the Earth cools. Then once CO2 begins to

drop it then "regains" its prominence through feedbacks and dominates. Then

CO2 continues to fall, yet the ice cores shows warming until CO2 finally

starts to rise. Then the feedback dominates again. It is well known that

the forcing of the Milankovitch orbital variations is not enough to explain

the ice age cycles. You need feedbacks. It is well known that the warming

is rapid out of an ice age, with slow cooling until you reach the glacial maximums.

To me it seems the ice albedo feedback is more logical because it takes

a very long time to build NH ice sheets hence the slow cooling. BUT once

an ice sheet starts to melt...it is rapid since the elevation of the ice dome

drops which leads to warming...less upslope precip...less snowfall etc...and lower albedo.

One can easily see how ice sheets once they reach a point can rapidly

collapse (when I say rapidly I mean about 10,000 years vs 80 thousand

years to build or so). CO2 is also a feedback but is it really the dominate one?

The colder and warmer oceans vary in their outgassing of CO2 which in turn dictates

how much CO2 is in our atmosphere (before human influences). It is interesting

to note that Argon levels in the ice cores mirror CO2 levels and the temperature

pattern too and it is not an infrared active gas. Methane also mirrors temperature

and it is a greenhouse gas...but for some reason has been falling lately despite

warming.

I am having trouble understanding how you have a thermostat for our climate

i.e CO2...which does not account for all the changes in temperature at the critical

points in the ice age cycles. Something else dominates over it...I believe

it is the building of ice on the NH continents which affects albedo.

Anyone have a better proof that CO2 is our thermostat? The scientific community

is convinced of this. I want to understand it. It just seems inconsistent that

CO2 dominates only during the rising and falling temperature limbs in the ice core

data but does not initiate the changes. Whatever initiates the changes I would think

is the dominate forcing in the ice age cycles. It is hard to understand how this

can otherwise be. Please share your thoughts. I am all ears.

Where did you find this jewel?

[Jonger]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how CO2 can be a global thermostat mainly

through feedbacks (water vapor and to a lesser extent ice albedo in NH) looking

at the Vostok Ice Cores. The lag of anywhere of 400 to 1000 years from the temperature

is troubling to me. Even if it is on the low end (that is 400 years), this means that CO2 goes up

for a minimum of 400 years and yet the Earth cools. Then once CO2 begins to

drop it then "regains" its prominence through feedbacks and dominates. Then

CO2 continues to fall, yet the ice cores shows warming until CO2 finally

starts to rise. Then the feedback dominates again. It is well known that

the forcing of the Milankovitch orbital variations is not enough to explain

the ice age cycles. You need feedbacks. It is well known that the warming

is rapid out of an ice age, with slow cooling until you reach the glacial maximums.

To me it seems the ice albedo feedback is more logical because it takes

a very long time to build NH ice sheets hence the slow cooling. BUT once

an ice sheet starts to melt...it is rapid since the elevation of the ice dome

drops which leads to warming...less upslope precip...less snowfall etc...and lower albedo.

One can easily see how ice sheets once they reach a point can rapidly

collapse (when I say rapidly I mean about 10,000 years vs 80 thousand

years to build or so). CO2 is also a feedback but is it really the dominate one?

The colder and warmer oceans vary in their outgassing of CO2 which in turn dictates

how much CO2 is in our atmosphere (before human influences). It is interesting

to note that Argon levels in the ice cores mirror CO2 levels and the temperature

pattern too and it is not an infrared active gas. Methane also mirrors temperature

and it is a greenhouse gas...but for some reason has been falling lately despite

warming.

I am having trouble understanding how you have a thermostat for our climate

i.e CO2...which does not account for all the changes in temperature at the critical

points in the ice age cycles. Something else dominates over it...I believe

it is the building of ice on the NH continents which affects albedo.

Anyone have a better proof that CO2 is our thermostat? The scientific community

is convinced of this. I want to understand it. It just seems inconsistent that

CO2 dominates only during the rising and falling temperature limbs in the ice core

data but does not initiate the changes. Whatever initiates the changes I would think

is the dominate forcing in the ice age cycles. It is hard to understand how this

can otherwise be. Please share your thoughts. I am all ears.

Terry posted a link recently about a massive co2 release possible in the arctic. The co2 was going to be released in response to warming. The irony was lost.

[blizzard1024]

Where did you find this jewel?

I misstated this. Methane trends were nearly stable or the rate of rise was slowing.

I read a paper on this...BUT... i went back and found the paper and it was before 2007 when

the trend was nearly steady or slowing its rate of rise. After 2007 it apparently is rising again.

However, that is not the main point of my post. Thanks for pointing this out.

[TerryM]

Terry posted a link recently about a massive co2 release possible in the arctic. The co2 was going to be released in response to warming. The irony was lost.

Actually I was only questioning how a Met could be unaware that methane levels have been climbing, not decreasing as he stated so emphaticaly. It indicates a lack of understanding of even the most basic research in climatology.

What did you find ironic about Arctic warming releasing C02 and CH4? It's a classic feedback mechanism that could lead to runaway warming. One of the dangers first noted I believe by Hansen in the 80's.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how CO2 can be a global thermostat mainly

through feedbacks (water vapor and to a lesser extent ice albedo in NH) looking

at the Vostok Ice Cores. The lag of anywhere of 400 to 1000 years from the temperature

is troubling to me. Even if it is on the low end (that is 400 years), this means that CO2 goes up

for a minimum of 400 years and yet the Earth cools. Then once CO2 begins to

drop it then "regains" its prominence through feedbacks and dominates. Then

CO2 continues to fall, yet the ice cores shows warming until CO2 finally

starts to rise. Then the feedback dominates again. It is well known that

the forcing of the Milankovitch orbital variations is not enough to explain

the ice age cycles. You need feedbacks. It is well known that the warming

is rapid out of an ice age, with slow cooling until you reach the glacial maximums.

To me it seems the ice albedo feedback is more logical because it takes

a very long time to build NH ice sheets hence the slow cooling. BUT once

an ice sheet starts to melt...it is rapid since the elevation of the ice dome

drops which leads to warming...less upslope precip...less snowfall etc...and lower albedo.

One can easily see how ice sheets once they reach a point can rapidly

collapse (when I say rapidly I mean about 10,000 years vs 80 thousand

years to build or so). CO2 is also a feedback but is it really the dominate one?

The colder and warmer oceans vary in their outgassing of CO2 which in turn dictates

how much CO2 is in our atmosphere (before human influences). It is interesting

to note that Argon levels in the ice cores mirror CO2 levels and the temperature

pattern too and it is not an infrared active gas. Methane also mirrors temperature

and it is a greenhouse gas...but for some reason has been falling lately despite

warming.

I am having trouble understanding how you have a thermostat for our climate

i.e CO2...which does not account for all the changes in temperature at the critical

points in the ice age cycles. Something else dominates over it...I believe

it is the building of ice on the NH continents which affects albedo.

Anyone have a better proof that CO2 is our thermostat? The scientific community

is convinced of this. I want to understand it. It just seems inconsistent that

CO2 dominates only during the rising and falling temperature limbs in the ice core

data but does not initiate the changes. Whatever initiates the changes I would think

is the dominate forcing in the ice age cycles. It is hard to understand how this

can otherwise be. Please share your thoughts. I am all ears.

Yes this makes perfect sense.

In our case the mechanism doing this whatever it is, is dormant or near a standstill.

Co2 is proven in lab analysis and by satellite obs that it increases down-welling radiative forcing. hence warming the TLT layer like a thick blanket.

Methane is a short lived gas a 10-20 year break in it's release will see atmospheric concentrations drop. But it is now rising.

The bottom line is that co2 is being blasted into the atmosphere by humans.

A natural creature which attained the intelligence and technology to do things that release co2 in huge quantities into the atmosphere.

As a green house has co2's strengh depends on it's concentration level. If nothing comes to abade it, like the Earth's tilt causing forced cooling or enhanced wrming or nuclear winter or volcanic winter or dimming or lower solar output.

Co2 will be the dominate force on the Earth's energy balance.

If Humans stopped putting co2 into the atmosphere within 50 year the energy balance would peak and slowly drop and an equilibrium of sorts would be reached in nature.

Bottom-line: The current natural climate is stable enough that human's releasing GHG's into the atmosphere annually now is the main energy balance driver until something comes to challenge it.

I hope this thread is not allowed to be inundated with crap science about how this is a big scam and we see black and white charts from the 1980s and 1990s showing us how its all solar, geomag, or cosmic rays.

[blizzard1024]

Actually I was only questioning how a Met could be unaware that methane levels have been climbing, not decreasing as he stated so emphaticaly. It indicates a lack of understanding of even the most basic research in climatology.

What did you find ironic about Arctic warming releasing C02 and CH4? It's a classic feedback mechanism that could lead to runaway warming. One of the dangers first noted I believe by Hansen in the 80's.

Terry

I don't follow trace gas concentrations. I remember when scientists could not account for the lack of rise

of methane, again this was earlier last decade. I misstated it in my original post.

In any event, methane is a very minor greenhouse gas and frankly I don't think anyone

understands the sources and sinks well. I also don't think it will be any factor. I have

taken graduate level classes in paleoclimatology and for all the major changes in past

climate, methane never sprialled out of control to influence the climate. There are breaking

mechanisms of which I believe are poorly understood. CO2 is rising fairly steady in sync with emissions. Methane

is not. I admit I am not an expert in this stuff. My speciality is forecasting severe weather. I don't profess to

be an expert in climate. I am trying to understand the CO2 dominance in our climate system better.

As a scientist and a critical thinker, it just does not add up in my mind. The proof that I hear

is that the climate models are projecting the destruction of our climate as we know it. Models....its all about models.

That's not proof.

The theory that 2 X CO2 leads to some warming(1.2C or so) which is amplified by water vapor leading to

a potential increase in temperature of 3-4C or more is based on models and model feedbacks.

I always thought convection in the tropics is the main source of energy balance in our atmosphere. These GCMs

do not handle convection well nor do they handle cloud cover another important feedback.

I think that is why METS are more skeptical, we understand how the atmosphere works and

its complexity. To say we have the climate system and its tremendous intricacies figured out well enough

to model it and project climate out to 100 years and be so certain of it, is really arrogant in my opinion.

This science is not settled in my opinion. There is so much to learn. I think most would agree with this.

One more thing. I don't like the tone that people use in this forum if you question the party line about CO2.

I am not even questioning it...just wanting to learn more. In any event, you are talked down to. we should all "believe"

like it is a religion? How dare we question anything to learn? yes I am a MET and proud of it. and No

I don't track methane concentrations in detail. now if someone can answer my original question, please

put this methane crap aside...I don't care about methane. I want to know more about CO2's influence on

our climate. I don't think anyone has a good answer....hopefully I am wrong here. And yes I read

skepticalscience.com's explanation and real climate's too and again am left with questions. Thanks.

[blizzard1024]

Yes this makes perfect sense.

In our case the mechanism doing this whatever it is, is dormant or near a standstill.

Co2 is proven in lab analysis and by satellite obs that it increases down-welling radiative forcing. hence warming the TLT layer like a thick blanket.

Methane is a short lived gas a 10-20 year break in it's release will see atmospheric concentrations drop. But it is now rising.

The bottom line is that co2 is being blasted into the atmosphere by humans.

A natural creature which attained the intelligence and technology to do things that release co2 in huge quantities into the atmosphere.

As a green house has co2's strengh depends on it's concentration level. If nothing comes to abade it, like the Earth's tilt causing forced cooling or enhanced wrming or nuclear winter or volcanic winter or dimming or lower solar output.

Co2 will be the dominate force on the Earth's energy balance.

If Humans stopped putting co2 into the atmosphere within 50 year the energy balance would peak and slowly drop and an equilibrium of sorts would be reached in nature.

Bottom-line: The current natural climate is stable enough that human's releasing GHG's into the atmosphere annually now is the main energy balance driver until something comes to challenge it.

I hope this thread is not allowed to be inundated with crap science about how this is a big scam and we see black and white charts from the 1980s and 1990s showing us how its all solar, geomag, or cosmic rays.

This is a good point. Thanks.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't follow trace gas concentrations. I remember when scientists could not account for the lack of rise

of methane, again this was earlier last decade. I misstated it in my original post.

In any event, methane is a very minor greenhouse gas and frankly I don't think anyone

understands the sources and sinks well. I also don't think it will be any factor. I have

taken graduate level classes in paleoclimatology and for all the major changes in past

climate, methane never sprialled out of control to influence the climate. There are breaking

mechanisms of which I believe are poorly understood. CO2 is rising fairly steady in sync with emissions. Methane

is not. I admit I am not an expert in this stuff. My speciality is forecasting severe weather. I don't profess to

be an expert in climate. I am trying to understand the CO2 dominance in our climate system better.

As a scientist and a critical thinker, it just does not add up in my mind. The proof that I hear

is that the climate models are projecting the destruction of our climate as we know it. Models....its all about models.

That's not proof.

The theory that 2 X CO2 leads to some warming(1.2C or so) which is amplified by water vapor leading to

a potential increase in temperature of 3-4C or more is based on models and model feedbacks.

I always thought convection in the tropics is the main source of energy balance in our atmosphere. These GCMs

do not handle convection well nor do they handle cloud cover another important feedback.

I think that is why METS are more skeptical, we understand how the atmosphere works and

its complexity. To say we have the climate system and its tremendous intricacies figured out well enough

to model it and project climate out to 100 years and be so certain of it, is really arrogant in my opinion.

This science is not settled in my opinion. There is so much to learn. I think most would agree with this.

One more thing. I don't like the tone that people use in this forum if you question the party line about CO2.

I am not even questioning it...just wanting to learn more. In any event, you are talked down to. we should all "believe"

like it is a religion? How dare we question anything to learn? yes I am a MET and proud of it. and No

I don't track methane concentrations in detail. now if someone can answer my original question, please

put this methane crap aside...I don't care about methane. I want to know more about CO2's influence on

our climate. I don't think anyone has a good answer....hopefully I am wrong here. And yes I read

skepticalscience.com's explanation and real climate's too and again am left with questions. Thanks.

Carbon Dioxide doesn't allow certain frequency's of radiation to pass through it deflecting those particles in all directions at all times.

If Carbon Dioxide is lowered less radiation is deflected and more escapes to space, this process is seamless 24/7/365. The more Carbon Dioxide the more radiation that is deflected.

some is deflected slowly out to space but will be deflected by more co2 like trillions or more of little balls hitter more little balls bouncing chaotically all over.

However when this radiation hits the surface some is absorbed, some used for melting ice or snow, some immediately radiated back, some slowly radiated back.

because CARBON DIOXIDE is always increasing the amount of AVAILABLE RADIATION TO BE ABSORBED INCREASES, HENCEFORTH, more radiation is absorbed by the ocean's which have a very lower albedo ranging from 0.2 to 0.8.

The energy disperses in the oceans pending many factors overtime the oceans warm and more and more radiation is released back to the Atmosphere because CARBON DIOXIDE continues to increase this creates even more feedback's for energy to increase.

However during periods of more or less energy being released the Earths surface layer can warm or cool but overtime will warm because solar incoming radiation is near consistent and carbon dioxide is currently always increasing on a annual basis.

Close your eyes and imagine brown dots, trillions or more moving around in the atmosphere this is co2 they are always increasing annually, then imagine yellow dots of solar energy that get scatted by these dots the ones that reach the ground and come back up have a less clear path to space than before and more yellow dots get sent flying back to the surface which absorbs some and send some back.

every so slowly the surface retains more than goes back.

and we warm

And yes you're right if cloud suddenly changed by 5 percent in either direction we would also see carbon be a less infuence than that.

If the sun dimmed 5 percent the same thing.

but so far co2 doesn't change the system it just changes how warm or cold the system is by changing the energy imbalance.

Water vapor goes up but so does temperature.

Also this is causing massive ice/snow loss.

Spring snowfall is likely succumbing to ever increasing solar insolation in Spring and Summer melting out faster causing more energy to stay within the system.

It may not be coincidence that June and Now 2012 with no NINO reached 2010 on AMSU temps.

June was the peak of a massive snow albedo loss.

Now is the peak of ice albedo loss and snow cover is slow to come back and ice is also not stopping enery to leave the arctic ocean likely warming the atmosphere and raising heights.

[The_Global_Warmer]

We can see this in action. The cold area's are less in size and strength vs the warm area's. snow and ice albedo feedback's far North, Ocean's being above normal, GHGs working their craft. It continues to lead to a warmer Earth. It's not surprising with no NINO, -PDO, very very weak solar max we still sit at near record warmth globally and Northern Hemisphere Oceans North of 30N are at records warmth.

[blizzard1024]

Carbon Dioxide doesn't allow certain frequency's of radiation to pass through it deflecting those particles in all directions at all times.

If Carbon Dioxide is lowered less radiation is deflected and more escapes to space, this process is seamless 24/7/365. The more Carbon Dioxide the more radiation that is deflected.

some is deflected slowly out to space but will be deflected by more co2 like trillions or more of little balls hitter more little balls bouncing chaotically all over.

However when this radiation hits the surface some is absorbed, some used for melting ice or snow, some immediately radiated back, some slowly radiated back.

because CARBON DIOXIDE is always increasing the amount of AVAILABLE RADIATION TO BE ABSORBED INCREASES, HENCEFORTH, more radiation is absorbed by the ocean's which have a very lower albedo ranging from 0.2 to 0.8.

The energy disperses in the oceans pending many factors overtime the oceans warm and more and more radiation is released back to the Atmosphere because CARBON DIOXIDE continues to increase this creates even more feedback's for energy to increase.

However during periods of more or less energy being released the Earths surface layer can warm or cool but overtime will warm because solar incoming radiation is near consistent and carbon dioxide is currently always increasing on a annual basis.

Close your eyes and imagine brown dots, trillions or more moving around in the atmosphere this is co2 they are always increasing annually, then imagine yellow dots of solar energy that get scatted by these dots the ones that reach the ground and come back up have a less clear path to space than before and more yellow dots get sent flying back to the surface which absorbs some and send some back.

every so slowly the surface retains more than goes back.

and we warm

And yes you're right if cloud suddenly changed by 5 percent in either direction we would also see carbon be a less infuence than that.

If the sun dimmed 5 percent the same thing.

but so far co2 doesn't change the system it just changes how warm or cold the system is by changing the energy imbalance.

Water vapor goes up but so does temperature.

Also this is causing massive ice/snow loss.

Spring snowfall is likely succumbing to ever increasing solar insolation in Spring and Summer melting out faster causing more energy to stay within the system.

It may not be coincidence that June and Now 2012 with no NINO reached 2010 on AMSU temps.

June was the peak of a massive snow albedo loss.

Now is the peak of ice albedo loss and snow cover is slow to come back and ice is also not stopping enery to leave the arctic ocean likely warming the atmosphere and raising heights.

But how much influence does CO2 really have? It absorbs most strongly at 15 microns which using Wien's Displacement law corresponds to -50C.

The only place on earth near -50C for long periods of time is Antarctica and we know there is little if any warming there.

Water vapor absorption bands overlap CO2 over many terrestrial IR frequencies. Water vapor is far more important. I also am uncertain about

H20 as a feedback and not a forcing. Clouds and water vapor are critical in the greenhouse effect. CO2 is much less so. And also increasing

C02 leads to a logarithmic increase in radiation absorbed. These questions I have not received good answers. When the Earth warms(cools), no

matter what the cause, the Arctic sees the most warming (cooling). Paleoclimate shows this. So it does not surprise me that the Arctic has seen the most changes.

I also am very skeptical about cosmic rays etc, sunspots etc...(unless we go to a grand minimum or something). I also am very skeptical about

low sea ice = more negative AO and NAOs. I guess I am skeptical about a lot of things...including weather forecasts at times!!!

[The_Global_Warmer]

I would think the oceans storing so much heat and able to increase it as long as Co2 is working would be big big factor in this.

[Msalgado]

I think one of the main issues with trying to correlate the effects of CO2 with the temperature records as you're doing is that you're using a single ice score location. Because the bi polar see saw and the mechanisms involved with it are huge players in what areas warm first its best to look at the temperature records from across the globe as opposed to from one location.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/unlocking-the-secrets-to-ending-an-ice-age/

I think that post is a great run through on how its works. That being said, I think that most paleoclimatologists would readily admit that the mechanisms behind these cycles are not understood to a high level and we're having to do some flat out guessing here. I know that some of the papers that came out this past spring did a good job filling in some of the gaps and presenting a better picture of the whole system but its an area where we're still trying to get a better handle on things.

[Msalgado]

But how much influence does CO2 really have? It absorbs most strongly at 15 microns which using Wien's Displacement law corresponds to -50C.

The only place on earth near -50C for long periods of time is Antarctica and we know there is little if any warming there.

Water vapor absorption bands overlap CO2 over many terrestrial IR frequencies. Water vapor is far more important. I also am uncertain about

H20 as a feedback and not a forcing. Clouds and water vapor are critical in the greenhouse effect. CO2 is much less so. And also increasing

C02 leads to a logarithmic increase in radiation absorbed. These questions I have not received good answers. When the Earth warms(cools), no

matter what the cause, the Arctic sees the most warming (cooling). Paleoclimate shows this. So it does not surprise me that the Arctic has seen the most changes.

I also am very skeptical about cosmic rays etc, sunspots etc...(unless we go to a grand minimum or something). I also am very skeptical about

low sea ice = more negative AO and NAOs. I guess I am skeptical about a lot of things...including weather forecasts at times!!!

The entirety of earth emits quite a bit of radiation out in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers. You may need a temp of -50C for that to be that part of the spectrum to be the peak, but places that are warmer are definitely still emitting a large amount of LW back out at that wavelength.

Play around with this a bit and you'll see that even for a tropical location CO2 is having a large effect.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html

[The_Global_Warmer]

One more thing. I don't like the tone that people use in this forum if you question the party line about CO2.

I am not even questioning it...just wanting to learn more. In any event, you are talked down to. we should all "believe"

like it is a religion? How dare we question anything to learn? yes I am a MET and proud of it. and No

I don't track methane concentrations in detail. now if someone can answer my original question, please

put this methane crap aside...I don't care about methane. I want to know more about CO2's influence on

our climate. I don't think anyone has a good answer....hopefully I am wrong here. And yes I read

skepticalscience.com's explanation and real climate's too and again am left with questions. Thanks.

I think the nastiness between skeptics and what is called warminists is caused by deniers and fake skeptics.

After taking so much bleep from fake skeptics and deniers. plenty of people who I guess fall under where I fall(Warminists believe rapid feedback of ice and snow loss is underway, more GHG's in the pipe will amplify it, the Earth will warm 1.5-4.0C by 2100+ and the situation will quickly escalate out of control faster than the 7.5-11 billion population between 2015-2100 can handle resulting in the loss of thousands to potentially hundreds of millions of human lives and the financial damage that will wreck economies and governments.)

Generally skeptics just don't think it will be that bad but will be to some order.

Most of our heated arguments come to standstills over things like the AMO, will the arctic sea ice recover for a bit before it melts out or is it melting out rather soon, will global temps start to rise .2 to .4 to .6C by 2020, 2025 or stagger upwards by .2C by 2030 or so.

These arguments are more petty and lead to falling out's for times, calling out each others wrong predictions and bad forecasts.

Deniers are becoming fake skeptics, folks who are really deniers of GHG warming but pretend they believe it in, while peddling complete bull****, they typically come with the copy and paste form or reincarnation of bethesdaboy like posters or the has no clue about climate posters who lie constantly, never contribute, and make many posts personal making fun or making up lies about warminists.

They litter the global temperature threads with complete horse**** about how cooling is coming, how NCDC is forging their data, how Jimmmmmmaayyyy Hanson constantly manipulates GISS data to show more warming, they peddle graphs starting in 1998, 2002, 2006 showing the Earth is cooling

but they also scatter at light speed when UAH pumps out a .32C April-Aug average TLT anomaly, they literally hole up at Goodards blog, WUWT, and Bastardi's Twitter feed when things like the current AMSU Channel 5 Temps virtually tie 2010's with no NINO, -PDO, and low solar max. After all they predicted cooling by 2012, or Sept of 2012 or early 2013 from Geomag and other crap.

If You haven't noticed the GT thread is dead right now. Outside of the daily, bi weekly or weekly updates of AMSU there hasn't been much to talk about. I am sure AMSU channel 5 temps will drop sharply soon and you will see the fake skeptics come back talk about middle of the pack when temps are 4th of 11th or something, it feels like it's never honest intentions or honest talk at all, we all make mistakes that will make us look like ***holes, liars, and bullys. But skeptics and warminists know and forgive each other over those things. But the fact skeptics never stop with their games.

Look at the sea ice thread last summer it was littered with fakes, bullying, trolling, lying and they dropped like flies by late August, they came back at times, but then exploded back in late March and April when weather patterns gave a 2 DIMENSIONAL ILLUSION THAT THE ICE WAS RECOVERING. stretching the truth, calling people negative because they tried to have a real convo about it. Then by late May when 2012 tanked like the folks who actually pay attention including many real skeptics.

Once again when the arctic smashed more records and a post about what came up? ANTARCTICA!

Fake skeptics again made noise but little analysis and data.

Who did it all? Some real skeptics and WARMINNIIIISSSTTAAASSSSS!!!!!

At this point most of us warminists think fake skeptics are flat liars. We don't buy the endless garbage posts with bold face lie assertions anymore as misinterpretations or misunderstanding.

No they bold face lie knowing most skeptics overlook it and if a warminist doesn't correct it, it's passed off as fact.

As far as co2 we don't have all the answers, but we have a lot and we know it's warming and all of the current up to date info says it will increase in strength as times goes on.

I think the biggest worry is feedbacks that could ruin us like methane clathrates or the oceans steeply declining is co2 absorbtion or Greenland turning dark all over and Antarctica also melting rapidly.

well see

[The_Global_Warmer]

One more thing. I don't like the tone that people use in this forum if you question the party line about CO2.

I am not even questioning it...just wanting to learn more. In any event, you are talked down to. we should all "believe"

like it is a religion? How dare we question anything to learn? yes I am a MET and proud of it. and No

I don't track methane concentrations in detail. now if someone can answer my original question, please

put this methane crap aside...I don't care about methane. I want to know more about CO2's influence on

our climate. I don't think anyone has a good answer....hopefully I am wrong here. And yes I read

skepticalscience.com's explanation and real climate's too and again am left with questions. Thanks.

I think the nastiness between skeptics and what is called warminists is caused by deniers and fake skeptics.

After taking so much bleep from fake skeptics and deniers. plenty of people who I guess fall under where I fall(Warminists believe rapid feedback of ice and snow loss is underway, more GHG's in the pipe will amplify it, the Earth will warm 1.5-4.0C by 2100+ and the situation will quickly escalate out of control faster than the 7.5-11 billion population between 2015-2100 can handle resulting in the loss of thousands to potentially hundreds of millions of human lives and the financial damage that will wreck economies and governments.)

Generally skeptics just don't think it will be that bad but will be to some order.

Most of our heated arguments come to standstills over things like the AMO, will the arctic sea ice recover for a bit before it melts out or is it melting out rather soon, will global temps start to rise .2 to .4 to .6C by 2020, 2025 or stagger upwards by .2C by 2030 or so.

These arguments are more petty and lead to falling out's for times, calling out each others wrong predictions and bad forecasts.

Deniers are becoming fake skeptics, folks who are really deniers of GHG warming but pretend they believe it in, while peddling complete bull****, they typically come with the copy and paste form or reincarnation of bethesdaboy like posters or the has no clue about climate posters who lie constantly, never contribute, and make many posts personal making fun or making up lies about warminists.

They litter the global temperature threads with complete horse**** about how cooling is coming, how NCDC is forging their data, how Jimmmmmmaayyyy Hanson constantly manipulates GISS data to show more warming, they peddle graphs starting in 1998, 2002, 2006 showing the Earth is cooling

but they also scatter at light speed when UAH pumps out a .32C April-Aug average TLT anomaly, they literally hole up at Goodards blog, WUWT, and Bastardi's Twitter feed when things like the current AMSU Channel 5 Temps virtually tie 2010's with no NINO, -PDO, and low solar max. After all they predicted cooling by 2012, or Sept of 2012 or early 2013 from Geomag and other crap.

If You haven't noticed the GT thread is dead right now. Outside of the daily, bi weekly or weekly updates of AMSU there hasn't been much to talk about. I am sure AMSU channel 5 temps will drop sharply soon and you will see the fake skeptics come back talk about middle of the pack when temps are 4th of 11th or something, it feels like it's never honest intentions or honest talk at all, we all make mistakes that will make us look like ***holes, liars, and bullys. But skeptics and warminists know and forgive each other over those things. But the fact skeptics never stop with their games.

Look at the sea ice thread last summer it was littered with fakes, bullying, trolling, lying and they dropped like flies by late August, they came back at times, but then exploded back in late March and April when weather patterns gave a 2 DIMENSIONAL ILLUSION THAT THE ICE WAS RECOVERING. stretching the truth, calling people negative because they tried to have a real convo about it. Then by late May when 2012 tanked like the folks who actually pay attention including many real skeptics.

Once again when the arctic smashed more records and a post about what came up? ANTARCTICA!

Fake skeptics again made noise but little analysis and data.

Who did it all? Some real skeptics and WARMINNIIIISSSTTAAASSSSS!!!!!

At this point most of us warminists think fake skeptics are flat liars. We don't buy the endless garbage posts with bold face lie assertions anymore as misinterpretations or misunderstanding.

No they bold face lie knowing most skeptics overlook it and if a warminist doesn't correct it, it's passed off as fact.

As far as co2 we don't have all the answers, but we have a lot and we know it's warming and all of the current up to date info says it will increase in strength as times goes on.

I think the biggest worry is feedbacks that could ruin us like methane clathrates or the oceans steeply declining is co2 absorbtion or Greenland turning dark all over and Antarctica also melting rapidly.

well see

[blizzard1024]

I think one of the main issues with trying to correlate the effects of CO2 with the temperature records as you're doing is that you're using a single ice score location. Because the bi polar see saw and the mechanisms involved with it are huge players in what areas warm first its best to look at the temperature records from across the globe as opposed to from one location.

http://www.realclima...ing-an-ice-age/

I think that post is a great run through on how its works. That being said, I think that most paleoclimatologists would readily admit that the mechanisms behind these cycles are not understood to a high level and we're having to do some flat out guessing here. I know that some of the papers that came out this past spring did a good job filling in some of the gaps and presenting a better picture of the whole system but its an area where we're still trying to get a better handle on things.

Yes you are correct in that the hemispheres show up "antiphase" when related to temperatures. From what I learned it was the decline of summer-time insolation

in the NH that eventually triggered the great ice sheets to form. The declining summer insolation is what would allow the snows of the previous season

to not melt and eventually allow for a slow build up of land mass ice sheets. This no doubt affected the albedo which would in turn lower temperature further.

Since the speed of the thermohaline ocean circulations dictates the distribution of heat in the hemispheres, a fast thermohaline cirrculation pumps heat out of the

southern hemisphere and into the NH while a slow circulation allows heat to remain in the SH while the NH cools down. How this all factors in related to global CO2 concentrations is difficult. I read the above realclimate post awhile ago and it was counter to my understanding of which I learned in graduate school under a professor who was a paleoclimatolgist( and also a believer in AGW from CO2).

The model in the above paper is that there is warming in the NH from increased summer-time insolation which begins to melt the ice sheets. The meltwater collapses the Atlantic MOC which cools the NH, this warms the SH (heat accumulates) which warms the southern oceans and possibly outgasses CO2 after the warming. Hence there is a lag. The increase in CO2 then spreads this warming globally which then pulls the Earth out of the ice house state. That is the theory. They admit there is still work to be done here to understand this more. But I wonder if all this is an attempt to rescue the CO2 thermostat hypothesis. What strikes me off the bat looking at those graphs is how well correlated CO2 is to global temperature reconstructed from ice cores. It is lock step which to me is amazing since there are so many other variables in the climate system(but still lags it). It would amaze me that a small trace gas would have that much influence over a global climate that is dominated also by water vapor, ocean currents, waxing and waning ice sheets etc. A trace gas basically explains our climate system's main forcing in a nut shell after the milankovitch mechanisms kick things off. That is amazing to me how simple this is. We know the climate system is much more complex.

The easier hypothesis understand is temperatures goes up or down and CO2 follows passively due to the increase or decrease in solubility of the vast oceans. It does have some small impact. That is the easy explanation. The fact that argon also follows like CO2 very similarly and is not a greenhouse gas is also unsettling to me about this whole theory. Argon is more(less) soluble etc due to ocean temperatures. It has no affect on the climate system yet mirrors CO2, Methane has a very small greenhouse effect and yet too looks just like the CO2 graphs vs temperatures. Something is not well understand. Is the whole house of cards crashing down relating CO2 to CAGW? Physics states 1.2C warming from doubling CO2. Feedbacks make it CAGW vs just AGW.

Thanks for posting this. This is a good discussion. Please share with me any other thoughts or point out anything I may have missed or mis-interpreted. This is a GOOD discussion. Not an attack on someone who is trying to sort things out. I don't just blindly believe stuff. I am always skeptical it is my nature and not just this CO2 thermostat theory.

Thanks for an informative post!

[blizzard1024]

The entirety of earth emits quite a bit of radiation out in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers. You may need a temp of -50C for that to be that part of the spectrum to be the peak, but places that are warmer are definitely still emitting a large amount of LW back out at that wavelength.

Play around with this a bit and you'll see that even for a tropical location CO2 is having a large effect.

http://forecast.uchi...ts/modtran.html

COOL. I will look at this. Now this is what a climate change forum should be for. To LEARN. not to blast each other. That shuts down learning.

I want to learn....thanks! Again just because I am a MET does not make me an expert in climate. It is not my field. I have studied a lot on

climate and haven taken some courses but I have NO peer reviewed papers in climate. I have many peer reviewed papers in meteorology.

Big difference.

[donsutherland1]

Although I'm not aware of a broad scientific consensus to reconcile the CO2-temperature lag, pieces from assorted literature seem to paint a rough sequence of events that can be described as follows:

1. Initial warming takes place

2. Atmospheric CO2 rises

3. Rising atmospheric CO2 sustains the warming

4. Atmospheric CO2 continues to rise

5. Temperatures and atmospheric CO2 ultimately peak

Changes in solar insolation resulting from the earth's orbital fluctuations, longer-term changes in solar irradiance, and/or other natural factors may have been the trigger for the initial warming. At some point, temperatures rose to a level that permitted the release of CO2 that had previously been stored under frozen soil/ice. In turn the increase in atmospheric CO2 either maintained or enhanced an energy imbalance, leading to additional warming and additional releases of CO2. The oceanic circulation and feedbacks also had an impact. The warming continued until the energy imbalance disappeared.

That the "trigger" for the initial warming was likely not CO2 and was not anthropogenic does not rule out an anthropogenic explanation for a large or majority part of the recent observed warming that remains underway. The release of CO2 from human activities led to an excess of emissions (natural and anthropogenic) relative to absorption of CO2, driving an increase in atmospheric CO2. Rising atmospheric CO2 has led to a persistent energy imbalance that remained fairly large even during the deepest and longest solar minimum since at least early in the 20th century. In effect, the warming cycle was kickstarted even without the usual natural trigger. If that idea is right, there's no conflict between the CO2-temperature lag found in the Vostok ice cores and the anthropogenic explanation for the ongoing warming.

[Vergent]

I am having a lot of trouble understanding how CO2 can be a global thermostat mainly

through feedbacks (water vapor and to a lesser extent ice albedo in NH) looking

at the Vostok Ice Cores. The lag of anywhere of 400 to 1000 years from the temperature

is troubling to me. Even if it is on the low end (that is 400 years), this means that CO2 goes up

for a minimum of 400 years and yet the Earth cools. Then once CO2 begins to

drop it then "regains" its prominence through feedbacks and dominates. Then

CO2 continues to fall, yet the ice cores shows warming until CO2 finally

starts to rise. Then the feedback dominates again. It is well known that

the forcing of the Milankovitch orbital variations is not enough to explain

the ice age cycles. You need feedbacks. It is well known that the warming

is rapid out of an ice age, with slow cooling until you reach the glacial maximums.

To me it seems the ice albedo feedback is more logical because it takes

a very long time to build NH ice sheets hence the slow cooling. BUT once

an ice sheet starts to melt...it is rapid since the elevation of the ice dome

drops which leads to warming...less upslope precip...less snowfall etc...and lower albedo.

One can easily see how ice sheets once they reach a point can rapidly

collapse (when I say rapidly I mean about 10,000 years vs 80 thousand

years to build or so). CO2 is also a feedback but is it really the dominate one?

The colder and warmer oceans vary in their outgassing of CO2 which in turn dictates

how much CO2 is in our atmosphere (before human influences). It is interesting

to note that Argon levels in the ice cores mirror CO2 levels and the temperature

pattern too and it is not an infrared active gas. Methane also mirrors temperature

and it is a greenhouse gas...but for some reason has been falling lately despite

warming.

I am having trouble understanding how you have a thermostat for our climate

i.e CO2...which does not account for all the changes in temperature at the critical

points in the ice age cycles. Something else dominates over it...I believe

it is the building of ice on the NH continents which affects albedo.

Anyone have a better proof that CO2 is our thermostat? The scientific community

is convinced of this. I want to understand it. It just seems inconsistent that

CO2 dominates only during the rising and falling temperature limbs in the ice core

data but does not initiate the changes. Whatever initiates the changes I would think

is the dominate forcing in the ice age cycles. It is hard to understand how this

can otherwise be. Please share your thoughts. I am all ears.

Utilising a recently developed

proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five

near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high

dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely

lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less

than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature

cannot be excluded. This result, consistent for both

CO2 records, implies a faster coupling between temperature

and CO2 than previous estimates, which had permitted up to

millennial-scale lags

http://www.antarctic...dro-CO2-lag.pdf

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. 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. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

http://www.nature.co...ature10915.html

Hope this helps. Always helps to have current data. The CO2 "lag" turns into a lead, when you get more data. Ice cores are local, its like having a single weather station in Antarctica and trying to make weather predictions for L.A.

Verg(:>)

[blizzard1024]

http://www.antarctic...dro-CO2-lag.pdf

http://www.nature.co...ature10915.html

Hope this helps. Always helps to have current data. The CO2 "lag" turns into a lead, when you get more data. Ice cores are local, its like having a single weather station in Antarctica and trying to make weather predictions for L.A.

Verg(:>)

Thanks everyone. You have helped immensely. Instead of having to dig and dig on my own to find the latest papers you folks have brought the latest to me. I think I have a better feel for it. Cheers.

Let's hope for a good winter anyway!!! I just bought a 1000+ dollar pair of downhill skiis.....

[donsutherland1]

http://www.antarctic...dro-CO2-lag.pdf

http://www.nature.co...ature10915.html

Hope this helps.

Many thanks for the links, Vergent.

[skierinvermont]

Actually I was only questioning how a Met could be unaware that methane levels have been climbing, not decreasing as he stated so emphaticaly. It indicates a lack of understanding of even the most basic research in climatology.

What did you find ironic about Arctic warming releasing C02 and CH4? It's a classic feedback mechanism that could lead to runaway warming. One of the dangers first noted I believe by Hansen in the 80's.

Terry

What I don't understand is why you started out by nitpicking that one detail and now slighting him personally while ignoring the main thrust of his post. It seemed to me he was genuinely trying to learn. Maybe that is not the case but we will soon find out. I certainly agree that pointing out factual errors is important but I don't think making this the first response and getting personal is the right response.

[skierinvermont]

Just finished reading the thread. Thanks for the interesting responses Msalgado, Don, and Verg. Some good relevant papers there.

[Vergent]

What I don't understand is why you started out by nitpicking that one detail and now slighting him personally while ignoring the main thrust of his post. It seemed to me he was genuinely trying to learn. Maybe that is not the case but we will soon find out. I certainly agree that pointing out factual errors is important but I don't think making this the first response and getting personal is the right response.

Because of his infrequent postings, I and others treated this question as genuine. But, there is a general laziness in the met community, this question could have been answered bi 1 simple query to google scholar. As I did. Why am I doing homework for grad candidate mets?

Verg

[skierinvermont]

Because of his infrequent postings, I and others treated this question as genuine. But, there is a general laziness in the met community, this question could have been answered bi 1 simple query to google scholar. As I did. Why am I doing homework for grad candidate mets?

Verg

I've found plenty of factual errors in your posts too Verg. And there have been plenty in mine as well. It often happens when we make long posts and don't fact check every claim in a post. I've read and forgotten more about climate change than I could possibly remember and sometimes things get jumbled. I place high value on factual accuracy and detail. But mistakes are made and it doesn't have to get personal. At least not right away it doesn't... I've gotten personal too and told people to go do their homework but it usual takes a little more provocation than what happened in this thread.

[Msalgado]

Because of his infrequent postings, I and others treated this question as genuine. But, there is a general laziness in the met community, this question could have been answered bi 1 simple query to google scholar. As I did. Why am I doing homework for grad candidate mets?

Verg

Then don't answer it? Did his inability to go to Google somehow compel you to go do it for him?

[Msalgado]

Also, I live with a librarian. I use her as a search resource many times because going to someone who is better at searching the relevant databases is damn convenient and quicker. When I have a question about how to use a certain tool in ArcGIS I can certainly find it if I search long enough but I use the ESRI forums on a regular basis to ask others who may know before searching. Why? Because not everyone out there's first reaction to being asked a question about something they know is to b**ch that the other person doesn't know it. One of the biggest reasons to actually use internet forums - IMO - is to ask others for information as opposed to just living in a bubble of your own construction.

I rarely see the type of attitudes regarding such a request in forums such as this. Then again, I rarely see forums such as this hidden to nonregistered users and I think the reasons for thsoe actions are on display in this thread. Its sad.

[Vergent]

I've found plenty of factual errors in your posts too Verg.

Please fact check this assertion. With all the trolls who follow me, a single miss-statement would be haunting me for weeks. I did miss-state that the drought was caused by the reduced ice cap keeping the jet stream north in summer, but several papers have come out to show that it does so in fall and early winter. Mia culpa, I live in LA LA land, and haven't seen a cold front in a decade.

Who else has been more accurate than me regarding what has been happening in the arctic? Who else knew what that August storm would do? Who else knew that it was possible? Who else anywhere was more accurate regarding the SIA ans SIE minimums? Who else had the guts to put realistic, reasoned low numbers out there?

And there have been plenty in mine as well. It often happens when we make long posts and don't fact check every claim in a post. I've read and forgotten more about climate change than I could possibly remember and sometimes things get jumbled. I place high value on factual accuracy and detail.

Is this a backhanded way of admitting that you were wrong about the ESAS? I recall you scolding someone for not admitting they were wrong. "I would never do that."

If so, it is childish to do so by first saying that I make "plenty of factual errors". I have given you credit on several occasions regarding seawater needing to be cold to depth to freeze. I did so without making an attack on you.

But mistakes are made and it doesn't have to get personal. At least not right away it doesn't...

I've gotten personal too and told people to go do their homework but it usual takes a little more provocation than what happened in this thread.

I did not jump on his mistake. He got personal by bragging about those $1,000 skis. It seems to me quite selfish to be concerned about AGW only in terms of ones recreation. His first post seemed so sincere in his wanting to understand CO2 and AGW. It turns out he was only worried about his playtime, very disappointing.

[SVT450R]

Please fact check this assertion. With all the trolls who follow me, a single miss-statement would be haunting me for weeks. I did miss-state that the drought was caused by the reduced ice cap keeping the jet stream north in summer, but several papers have come out to show that it does so in fall and early winter. Mia culpa, I live in LA LA land, and haven't seen a cold front in a decade.

Who else has been more accurate than me regarding what has been happening in the arctic? Who else knew what that August storm would do? Who else knew that it was possible? Who else anywhere was more accurate regarding the SIA ans SIE minimums? Who else had the guts to put realistic, reasoned low numbers out there?

Is this a backhanded way of admitting that you were wrong about the ESAS? I recall you scolding someone for not admitting they were wrong. "I would never do that."

If so, it is childish to do so by first saying that I make "plenty of factual errors". I have given you credit on several occasions regarding seawater needing to be cold to depth to freeze. I did so without making an attack on you.

I did not jump on his mistake. He got personal by bragging about those $1,000 skis. It seems to me quite selfish to be concerned about AGW only in terms of ones recreation. His first post seemed so sincere in his wanting to understand CO2 and AGW. It turns out he was only worried about his playtime, very disappointing.