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

[skierinvermont]

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.

Yes you make errors in your posts. Are you really so arrogant to think that you do not? Everybody makes errors.

Here's some examples, some minor/trivial others more substantive:

1. in the other thread you just said the AO 'had gone schizo' and 'mother nature is about to flip a coin' because the 10 day AO forecast is anywhere from -3 to +3. As I pointed out that's not true.. the only thing that is 'schizo' or left to chance is the accuracy of the computer model forecasts.

2. You just accused me of being wrong about the ESB. I never said the ESB would not melt out. I suggested back in early July that some of the ice in the central arctic adjacent to the ESB might not melt fully. As the season continued and the bad weather continued and it became clearer that that ice would melt, I agreed that it would. So first of all, I never said anything about the 'official' ESB (if such a thing really exists) so your chart is irrelevant. Second, I was 50-50 or higher on that ice adjacent to the ESB melting. Third, this was a prediction not a factual claim. So you are wrong about several facts.

3. You were wrong about how quickly methane was increasing back in this thread http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/30926-this-is-not-good/page__st__455. You argued that arctic methane emissions had increased 1,000,000% in one year. Instead, what was occurring was that researchers were documenting methane release in previously unexplored areas.

4. In the same thread, you insisted that recent methane release from the deep sea arctic was related to AGW, while all the lead researchers (even the ones you were citing) were saying it was from the last 10,000 years of warming and that "so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release" (direct quote from recent paper).

5. In that same thread you also INSISTED that several reading from Barrow that deviated 200ppm from all the other values were correct, while I pointed out that the data was provisional and that such anomalous readings often turn out to be incorrect. You came up with all sorts of methane burp theories and how it moved about in the atmosphere. Even once NOAA removed the high values from the data set you insisted they were valid. Finally, Phillip emailed NOAA and they confirmed that the data was invalid.

6. Your prediction for CT_Area for sea ice was too low this year. Admittedly, we came much closer to your prediction than I thought we would. But I believe this is at least partially attributable to the unfavorable weather pattern and that you got a little 'lucky.' As I said though, I definitely underestimated the vulnerability of the ice while I believe you overestimate it. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

I could keep going...

[WeatherRusty]

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.

CO2 is a global thermostat in the sense that it is the scaffolding which supports the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Without atmospheric CO2 the greenhouse effect would collapse. If we could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, it is estimated that within 50 years the global ocean would freeze nearly all the way to the equator!

The greenhouse effect increases the current global temperature 33K degrees above the effective solar insolation/albedo induced surface temperature.

Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas which provides for the better part of that 33K, however water vapor can condense out of the atmosphere and its concentration in the atmosphere is highly dependent on ambient temperature. CO2 is the next most prevalent greenhouse gas, but it does not condense out of the atmosphere. CO2, therefore helps support the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. Held in isolation, CO2 provides for about 26% of the greenhouse effect.

The entire ice age cycle argument you present has CO2 acting as a feedback, it is not in control in that case.

What we are doing is forcing CO2 to act as the leading factor in enhancing the greenhouse effect.

[Vergent]

Yes you make errors in your posts. Are you really so arrogant to think that you do not? Everybody makes errors.

Here's some examples, some minor/trivial others more substantive:

1. in the other thread you just said the AO 'had gone schizo' and 'mother nature is about to flip a coin' because the 10 day AO forecast is anywhere from -3 to +3. As I pointed out that's not true.. the only thing that is 'schizo' or left to chance is the accuracy of the computer model forecasts.

schizo- or schiz-

pref.

1.

Split; cleft:

schizocarp.

2.

Cleavage; fission:

schizogenesis.

3.

Schizophrenia:

schizoid.

The forecasts ranged from +3 to -3 with a gap in the middle; schizo.

The forecasts were predicting two different scenarios. We generally attribute the unpredictable to chance.

2. You just accused me of being wrong about the ESB. I never said the ESB would not melt out. I suggested back in early July that some of the ice in the central arctic adjacent to the ESB might not melt fully. As the season continued and the bad weather continued and it became clearer that that ice would melt, I agreed that it would. So first of all, I never said anything about the 'official' ESB (if such a thing really exists) so your chart is irrelevant. Second, I was 50-50 or higher on that ice adjacent to the ESB melting. Third, this was a prediction not a factual claim. So you are wrong about several facts.

I didn't say that. I said that the ice pack should look roughly similar at the end of the melt season as it did in 2011 with possibly somewhat more ice surviving in/near (whichever you prefer) the ESB. That is a pretty straightforward statement. The Laptev also got decimated in August 2011 which might not happen this year.

This is the ice pack near the minimum in 2011. Notice the tongue of ice in/near the ESB. This is a common feature. The remaining 1.5 months of the melt season are usually not enough to melt in situ or compact all of this ice completely.

All you are doing is saying 'the ice is thin' 'the water is warm' 'there are cracks' 'it cannot survive'. These are useless statements in terms of predicting the minimum unless comparisons to previous years are made. The condition of the ice pack currently looks similar to what it was at this time in 2011. In some ways it is better, in some ways it is worse. Extent is better, but it is also more spread out. It's a wash as far as I can tell, which is why I said it's 50-50 on whether we break the minimum on Bremen.

3. You were wrong about how quickly methane was increasing back in this thread http://www.americanw...d/page__st__455. You argued that arctic methane emissions had increased 1,000,000% in one year. Instead, what was occurring was that researchers were documenting methane release in previously unexplored areas.

"The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years."

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

A 100 fold increase in diameter equals a 10,000 fold increase in area or a 1,000,000% increase in methane venting from the arctic. In one year.

You are right, I should have said "bubbling from the ESAS" rather than "venting". It is clear what I was quantifying. Is there something wrong with my math?

"previously unexplored areas."

Factual error, these vents were discovered by a commercial vessel, which do not navigate unexplored waters. If these vents were in waters traveled by cargo ships, how could thousands of vents a kilometer across be missed in previous years? With 24/7 daylight?

4. In the same thread, you insisted that recent methane release from the deep sea arctic was related to AGW, while all the lead researchers (even the ones you were citing) were saying it was from the last 10,000 years of warming and that "so far there has not been strong evidence of agw enhanced methane release" (direct quote from recent paper).

observed Arctic warming in early 21st century is stronger than predicted by several degrees, which may accelerate thaw release of methane from the upper seafloor layer by increasing bottom erosion and from deeper stratums (including hydrates) by sediment settlement and adjustment; 2) drastic sea ice shrinkage causes increase in storm activities and deepening of the wind-wave-mixing layer down to depth ~50 m that enhance methane release from the water column to the atmosphere.

http://adsabs.harvar...EGUGA..14.3913S

5. In that same thread you also INSISTED that several reading from Barrow that deviated 200ppm from all the other values were correct, while I pointed out that the data was provisional and that such anomalous readings often turn out to be incorrect. You came up with all sorts of methane burp theories and how it moved about in the atmosphere. Even once NOAA removed the high values from the data set you insisted they were valid. Finally, Phillip emailed NOAA and they confirmed that the data was invalid.

They did not remove the data. It was published 9/24/2012 and it is flagged as bad data.

a single or a double high reading is flagged in column 1; bad data

A string of four or more high readings is usually flagged in column 2; valid but does not meet the selection criteria.

This data set they are trying to show the atmospheric baseline, short-term elevated values are tossed out of the graph, not the data set. I can guarantee that they are there, and they are probably flagged in the second column. This years data will be added to this data soon I hope.

You are right I got that one wrong.

Fortunately we got Yurganov's methane data and the ESAS methane was clearly visible.

6. Your prediction for CT_Area for sea ice was too low this year. Admittedly, we came much closer to your prediction than I thought we would. But I believe this is at least partially attributable to the unfavorable weather pattern and that you got a little 'lucky.' As I said though, I definitely underestimated the vulnerability of the ice while I believe you overestimate it. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

I could keep going...

I was off by 170k, from CT, and 50k from NSIDC September average. how many k were you off? Who was closer than me? the lowest category on Neven's poll was less than 2.6, 370k away from reality. I properly predicted the effect of the storm, there was nothing lucky about it. In fact the storm was why I made my prediction. Others were saying it would stop the melt. Rather than argue, I made my prediction

So you have gone back over a year and found what? That I relied on a piece of bad data at a time where we had almost no other source of methane data on a methane thread. I was using it to show the backtrack maps so we could see where spikes(or the lack thereof) came from. The thread was heavily trolled by BB, I could not find PhilipS post.

[skierinvermont]

schizo- or schiz-

pref.

1.

Split; cleft:

schizocarp.

2.

Cleavage; fission:

schizogenesis.

3.

Schizophrenia:

schizoid.

The forecasts ranged from +3 to -3 with a gap in the middle; schizo.

The forecasts were predicting two different scenarios. We generally attribute the unpredictable to chance.

It is not unpredictable. Our computer models simply are just not detailed enough to predict it. You were clearly implying that the 'schizo' computer model forecast said that the AO itself had gone 'schizo.' This is a false statement. Only the computer modeling had gone 'schizo.'

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

You are right, I should have said "bubbling from the ESAS" rather than "venting". It is clear what I was quantifying. Is there something wrong with my math?

"previously unexplored areas."

Factual error, these vents were discovered by a commercial vessel, which do not navigate unexplored waters. If these vents were in waters traveled by cargo ships, how could thousands of vents a kilometer across be missed in previous years? With 24/7 daylight?

"The research team have located new and large (~1km wide) plumes of outgassing methane, in areas not previously investigated, so this is not necessarily a recent development: at least, there are no previous data from these areas to compare the large plumes with."

The scientists themselves say there is no good data from other years to compare the recent findings with. And yet you are supremely confident that there was a single year 1,000,000% increase in the ESAS.

Here is Natalia Shakovha speaking directly to this question:

SkS: Your 2011 field season is reported to have located kilometre-diameter plumes of outgassing methane. Are these located in areas visited in previous seasons?

N. Shakhova: These were new sites from that part of the ESAS that was investigated very sparsely before. In our previous investigations we mainly focused on the shallower part of the ESAS, which composes about 70% of the total area and provides a very short conduit for methane to escape to the atmosphere. Besides, because we worked mostly on small vessels, we were not allowed to navigate far enough from the coasts to reach the mid-outer shelf where water is relatively deep on the scale of the shallow ESAS (>50 m depth). That is why deeper waters were under-represented and were considered a minor contributor to annual emissions.

http://thinkprogress...hova/?mobile=nc

You are simply wrong and straight from the horse's mouth. There is zero evidence to support a 1,000,000% increase. There is literally almost no previous data to compare to.

Finally, a 1,000,000% increase violates basic common sense as most posters pointed out (you ignored). In 2003, ESAS methane flux was estimated at 10.64 Mt. If there were a 10,000X increase, that would be over 100Gt... which has a forcing equivalent to 160 years of CO2 emissions at current rates and we would all be dead. Laughable.

http://adsabs.harvar...EGUGA..14.3913S

This attempted rebuttal to my fourth point does not say that current methane release is due to recent warming it. It only says that it is a future possibility.

They did not remove the data. It was published 9/24/2012 and it is flagged as bad data.

[/size][/font][/color]

You are right I got that one wrong.

Fortunately we got Yurganov's methane data and the ESAS methane was clearly visible.

I was off by 170k, from CT, and 50k from NSIDC September average. how many k were you off? Who was closer than me? the lowest category on Neven's poll was less than 2.6, 370k away from reality. I properly predicted the effect of the storm, there was nothing lucky about it. In fact the storm was why I made my prediction. Others were saying it would stop the melt. Rather than argue, I made my prediction

As I said, we came surprisingly close to your prediction. And yet it was still 170k too low (your prediction was specifically for CT not NSIDC) despite a very favorable melt pattern for the final ~1.5 months of the season from the time of your prediction to the end. Had the pattern been less favorable, you would have been off by 300-500k or more.

So you have gone back over a year and found what? That I relied on a piece of bad data at a time where we had almost no other source of methane data on a methane thread. I was using it to show the backtrack maps so we could see where spikes(or the lack thereof) came from. The thread was heavily trolled by BB, I could not find PhilipS post.

My examples 1-6 stand.

[blizzard1024]

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.

Are you kidding me? I am bragging about buying skiis? how is this bragging? You also make an awful assumption that all I care about is my ski

time? I was just joking. Man...get a life. You are too serious. I do care deeply about climate change and getting a better understanding of it. That's all.

[blizzard1024]

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.

Are you kidding me? I am bragging about buying skiis? how is this bragging? You also make an awful assumption that all I care about is my ski

time? I was just joking. Man...get a life. You are too serious. I do care deeply about climate change and getting a better understanding of it. That's all.

[Vergent]

Are you kidding me? I am bragging about buying skiis? how is this bragging? You also make an awful assumption that all I care about is my ski

time? I was just joking. Man...get a life. You are too serious. I do care deeply about climate change and getting a better understanding of it. That's all.

Then I am truly sorry. Your right I am too serious about this. If the Mets were serious about climate change, I wouldn't feel compelled to. You see we are going to have an ice free arctic in late summer in the near term. what will the weather be like them? We had a huge storm this August with the ice still there. How big will a storm like that be with the ice gone and the water is 20C? Should we just let it be a surprise?

[blizzard1024]

Then I am truly sorry. Your right I am too serious about this. If the Mets were serious about climate change, I wouldn't feel compelled to. You see we are going to have an ice free arctic in late summer in the near term. what will the weather be like them? We had a huge storm this August with the ice still there. How big will a storm like that be with the ice gone and the water is 20C? Should we just let it be a surprise?

Apology accepted. Vergent I am sorry to say that it is my belief that little is going to be done to control CO2 emissions unless it becomes economically viable.

The third world is accelerating its emissions. Our emissions have actually fallen slightly from what I read recently (our economy has slowed that is why). I really

think that even if the world warms by 2 to 3 C in the next 50 years or so...humans will adapt. We are going to eventually have to adapt to climate change

no matter what...someday the ice will come and that will be far worse. Probably in thousands of year. I am still not sure that CO2 levels are the whole story.

I am skeptical of computer models and if you believe models than yes you should be worried. It has warmed since the 70s but there are other times of warming too...

Anyway, please respect those who are trying to dig deeper and research on their own and not blindly listen to what climate scientists say.I am a scientist and I respect climate scientists but am curious and want to dig deep into this topic. so no disrespect to these folks either. It is just like people questioning meteorologists about

forecasts!!

[WeatherRusty]

CO2 is a global thermostat in the sense that it is the scaffolding which supports the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Without atmospheric CO2 the greenhouse effect would collapse. If we could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, it is estimated that within 50 years the global ocean would freeze nearly all the way to the equator!

The greenhouse effect increases the current global temperature 33K degrees above the effective solar insolation/albedo induced surface temperature.

Water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas which provides for the better part of that 33K, however water vapor can condense out of the atmosphere and its concentration in the atmosphere is highly dependent on ambient temperature. CO2 is the next most prevalent greenhouse gas, but it does not condense out of the atmosphere. CO2, therefore helps support the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. Held in isolation, CO2 provides for about 26% of the greenhouse effect.

The entire ice age cycle argument you present has CO2 acting as a feedback, it is not in control in that case.

What we are doing is forcing CO2 to act as the leading factor in enhancing the greenhouse effect.

I responded directly to the OP, yet people would rather bicker than address the issue head on.