Do you think this is a problem for global warming advocates?

Question

I don’t know Ottowa Mike, but in the absence of his link I’ll offer you one of my own,

This is the temperature history data derived from the GISP2 ice cores drilled in Greenland.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Please take the time to graph the data.

This is the published paper that the data comes from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

The record shows that over the last 10,000 years it was on average, over the whole period (not peaking at), about 1C warmer than today. The record also shows four prolonged periods in the last 2,000 years when the temperature was warmer than we currently experience. These four warm periods all precede industrial GHG emission growth.

Here is the historic CO2 record from the same ice sample.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/gases/co2.txt

If you are able to demonstrate that increased CO2 precedes warming from this data then your maths is very different from mine (but I’m quite open to being proved wrong).

More information about the GISP2 Greenland Ice Core project can be found here. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/

So, do you think this is a problem for global warming advocates?

It would be rather impolite if Dana or Littlerobbergirl responded to this question as they currently deny me the opportunity to respond to theirs.

Answer 1

yes i do because it has been proven in the scientific comuity that global warming isnt happing. but climate change has got data to support this theory.

1. have you consided the CO2 storage in the oceans. when the ocens change in temputer these CO2 storages become unstable.

2. the increase in CO2 can be explained throught the biffent sesons as when the sounthen hemisther is in summer there is less tree to resperate and converte CO2 in to O.

3. i havent looked at your grathes but ones ive study have shown that the CO2 contunus after the temputer has gorn down because of the lake of tress.

4. if your talking about the last 4 heat risers in the last 2,000 years you will have sean that these are followed by ices ages. the last one only happening in the last 400 years.

5. the earth is over due for the next ice age we where already ment to have had one. but even with the exspeted increase this should bring it is far higher.

6. humans are relesing CO2 that are stored in rocks.

7. the theory of engergy: we can not loss engergy wons it is used it turns into heat energy and humans are usiing alote of energy .



if you have anymore questions on this matter please email me at [e-mail] im happy to help

Answer 2

Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. In addition when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans.



When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. During at least the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2007). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high which is one explanation for these rises in temperature before man made emmissions.



The heating of the Earth's surface can cause changes in ocean currents. Because ocean currents play a significant role in distributing heat around the Earth, changes in these currents can bring about significant changes in climate from region to region.



Which could well explain these previous periods of global warming.

Answer 3

OK, so you have one report that points out the difficulty of getting meaningful historical and current climate conditions from one of the remotest regions on earth. Because of that, it's hard to model the potential of global warming based on the Antarctic data. What's your point? Do you somehow think this refutes anything? Oh wait, as a parting shot, how about a quote from the good professor on this same data? In reference to global warming - - David Bromwich, a meteorologist with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University in Columbus, said there's "no doubt this [warming] is real." - But, he added, the finding only "deepens the mystery of what's going on over Antarctica." I guess it's easier to parrot pundits than to research the data.

Answer 4

It has been warmer in the past, this is well known and fully discussed in the scientific literature.



It appears that the Arctic has warmed 1.5-2 C from the last point in that data.

http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html

So when you claim '1 C warmer than today' you may well be wrong. It could easily be '0.5-1 C cooler'.



You're trying to claim that since CO2 isn't the only driver of climate, that it is a problem for climate science. This is simply not true; it is well known that there are multiple drivers of climate, and multiple drivers of regional changes as well. They are included and considered in modern measurements, climate models, geological studies etc.







Milankovitch cycles provide very strong evidence for a positive feedback parameter and therefore a reasonable/high climate sensitivity. Without this, you would not observe the big swings in temperature that appear to be so strongly linked to the timing of Milankovitch cycles.



If climate sensitivity today is similar to that seen in the ice core data, then doubling CO2 will lead to 2-4.5 C of warming. (globally, models suggest Greenland will warm by more than the global average)



Knutti and Hegerl have references to various studies based on this, and comparison with alternative lines of evidence:

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Answer 5

Paleoclimatologists understand well that when the atmosphere warms naturally, after a lag of about 800 years the warming oceans throw-off CO2. That additional CO2 then further increases the warming. In natural warming, when the initial cause is usually Milankovitch cycles and/or solar irradicance cycles, CO2 is a positive feedback -- CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm.



With natural waming, the additional CO2 comes from the oceans. But we know that now the oceans are absorbing CO2.



This is one way we know the warming is not natural. The CO2 came first. Most notably, during the cooling period of the 1950s, 60s and 70s (thought by some to be caused by global dimming and by other to have been caused naturally by reduced solar irradiance) atmospheric CO2 continued to increase even as the atmosphere cooled. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is independent of the current warming -- the CO2 is coming first.



That this century is not natural can be clearly seen in the acidification of the oceans. The oceans are now absorbing CO2 from the air, whereas when the warming come first the oceans give off CO2 to the air. The acidificaion of the oceans cannot be explained by past patterns.



To summarize, we see that the current pattern is not natural because the CO2 and temperatures have been directly measured and the CO2 came first, and because the CO2 is moving in an unnatural direction: from the air to the oceans rather than the reverse.



This time, rather than being a feedback following initial natural forcings, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the initial forcing. This much is well understood and is not disputed among climate scientists.



If the current changes were like the past, then scientists would have concluded that something other than CO2 was causing the warming. That means that if the oceans were divesting of CO2 rather than absorbing it then scientists would conclude that the atmospheric CO2 was coming from the oceans just as it did in past natural warming periods.

Answer 6

<< So, do you think this is a problem for global warming advocates?>>



The 800 year lag is a problem for those who want climate change to have a single cause. It would be very satisfying and simple if a single cause could be identified, but that's not how things work in the real world.



<< If you are able to demonstrate that increased CO2 precedes warming from this data then your maths is very different from mine.>>



It should come as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 also affect climate. Atmospheric CO2 doesn’t cause the shift from a glacial period to an interglacial period. This shift takes about 5000 years to complete; the CO2 lag (as measured from various ice cores) is 800 +/_ 200 years. Therefore, we know that the first 1/6 of this transition was not caused by CO2. The well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages is thought to be responsible for initiating this change.



When the CO2 concentration starts to rise, the temperature continues to rise for another 4000+ years. The rise in temperature and the rise in CO2 go hand in hand. The Milankovitch cycles can not be responsible for the full change in temperature; only by including the feedback from rising concentrations of CO2 can the full change in temperature explained. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier.



The 800+/_ year lag has been well known to scientists. Lorius, Hansen, et al., predicted this lag years before the ice core at GISP2 and Vostok were even drilled.[1] The lag is NOT a problem to our understanding of paleoclimatology.





<< Please take the time to graph the data.>>

Why would I want to do that? NOAA has graphed the data for you: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif





<>



No it doesn’t, and for two reasons. (1) "Years Before Present (BP)" is radiocarbon years. "Present" is defined as 1950. The last plot on the graph is therefore 1950. The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8°C since the 1950’s.[2] If the years 1950-2010 were added to the graph, then the graph would show our recent global warming as a long vertical line.



(2) The Greenland ice core records are not a global temperature record.The GISP2 ice core provides prehistoric data from a small area in Greenland. You are comparing the temperature anomaly of this small area in Greenland with the temperature anomaly of the entire earth. Temperatures tend to swing more widely in the Arctic. A 2°C change in the arctic may only equal a small change globally.



<>

We'll see about that. Not a single person who answered "Yes, this is a problem" has been able to explain why it's a problem to our current understanding of paleoclimatology.





Edit, Jim Z says <>



Jim, I never said that CO2 caused the warming; I said that it amplified the warming. If you think that I’m wrong then please explain the transition from glacial to interglacial periods without including the feedback from increasing concentrations of CO2. Oh, and pleased source you answer with scientific literature.

Answer 7

This link is really worth reading. It is evidence given to the select committee of the US House of Representatives by William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University.



A balanced and objective analysis of the science and politics of climate change



http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG…

Answer 8

Since you like graphing data so much why don't you find the Vostok temp data and see how it compares with Greenland's temp data. You never know, you may actually learn something today.

Answer 9

"If you are able to demonstrate that increased CO2 precedes warming from this data then your maths is very different from mine"

Why would anyone need to, the point which has been explained to deniers again and again and again is that in past natural events, the cause was not Co2.

But as the planet warms slowly Co2 is increased and starts to increase the warming further. The Co2 finding it way into the system at the moment (last 100 years or so) is quite different to those previous natural events it is not caused by warming but us. In fact usually more is emitted in cold places like North America or Europe in winter.

I don't know what you think you have discovered here (in this decade old paper) but it is hardly new information It was warmer at the end of the last ice age (multiple studies showed that years ago)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

If you look at the last 4 ice ages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

They show a similar pattern a rapid rise to a peak and then a slow decline back to cold that peak for the most recent (end of ice age) was that warm period in the graph and it had been slowly cooling till about 100 years ago.

Then we started burn vast (and ever growing) amounts of fossil fuels



While the temperature in your links are clearly regional Greenland temps (-45 to -30c) your third link showing Co2 is pretty meaningless as it shows depth not date, so it's not possible attach a year (on the info you have presented) to a given period. In any event the levels show range between 270-300ppm (on average) current Co2 is approaching 400ppm



beren: You are quite correct about snow accumulation and increased temp that has been observed in Antarctica for sometime as the sea around it warms there has been an increase in snow fall, a couple of years ago deniers were trying to use increases in glacial mass (i.e. increase in snowfall as one of their arguments) But it's a rather silly one as Antarctica has one of the lowest precipitation (snow) rates on the planet, even more silly as increased snow was projected for Antarctica years before deniers started to make noise.

That warmer air allows more precipitation is pretty basic stuff really when your in a place that has an average temp of -50c (as deniers so often remind us)

What they don't mention is that coastal temps are quite a bit warmer, more like -10 to +5c in the brief Summer, with + temps becoming more common

Last time I was in Antarctica (Davis 2004) we had a +10c and this is Continental not the Peninsula. At the time that was a bit of a record, Mid Feb 2009 they had a +11.3 (about half way down the link page)

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=36011

Answer 10

Feel free to block me if you don't want me to answer your questions.



You might notice from your first link, the most recent data point is from 101 years ago (95 years prior to 2004). Central Greenland has warmed significantly over the past century, on the order of 2°C.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=4&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2002&year2=2009&base1=1900&base2=1910&radius=1200&pol=reg



And historically, CO2 has not preceeded warming. Historically it's acted as a feedback. Now it's acting as a forcing. That's climate science 101. Deniers like CO2 expeller who act as though this is some new claim need to wake up and learn some basic climate science, because it doesn't get much more basic than that.

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-warming-and-climate-change-causes



CO2 expeller also claims AGW has made no testable predictions, which is utterly absurd. Here is a list of a few testable and tested predictions.

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/fingerprints-of-human-caused-climate-change



*edit* CO2 expeller says "If historically it acted more as an effect of warming, then all of the historical information for determining the strength of CO2 as a driver is useless"



This is wrong. CO2 causes the same amount of warming whether it acts as a forcing or feedback. Even when CO2 has acted as a feedback in major climate changes, it has caused a significant amount if not the majority of the warming during those periods (i.e. transitions from glacial to interglacial). It was not the initial forcing, but it was the driver.



I recommend CO2 expeller and Dave both read this:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/

Answer 11

Clearly it is a major problem but it is easy to discount it if you are really eager to see CO2 as the bad guy.



Benjamin has to jump through so many hoops to suggest that CO2 was causing the warming, yet he does so readily and unapologetically. I suppose it is required to continue to see CO2 as the primary driver of climate.



Lynlions used to block me but it wasn't because I was reporting his questions or answers. I didn't. I think he just didn't like getting confronted with the truth. That is certainly true of Robbergirl. To Dana's credit, I am probably harder on him than anyone but he hasn't blocked me.

Answer 12

Yes the planet does cycle colder and warmer we know that. That's why we have had ice ages but its not the fact that it is happening. Its the rate of which it is happening since the industrial revolution the rate has increased. People need to get over it and accept responsibility and stop being ignorant and not willing to change their lives, get out of their hummers and suburbans and get over yourselves and accept science. Don't just accept the pieces you like accept it all because that's how it works.

Answer 13

<>



I'm not Jeff, but if you could show me that CO2 does not have a resonance frequency near the peak of the Earth's blackbody spectrum, then I would doubt global warming.



OK, I gave you a specific testable thing. Will you take my challenge?



EDIT



<>



This us a common fallacious argument by Deniers.



It should be obvious why it is wrong, but I will explain anyway.



CO2 causes warming via the greenhouse effect. But ALSO warming causes CO2 to leave the oceans, because as we learned in high school chemistry, warmer water holds less dissolved gasses. So there are TWO things going on. In the past, typically it was mainly the second thing that occurred. Now it is mainly the first thing.



What is so strange is that I know Deniers who I have explained this to, and they just wait a few weeks and then make the same argument! What is going on with them?



EDIT



<>



It is YOU guys who are claiming that the lag time disproves CO2 disproves global warming. Logically, all I need to do is present an alternative, and your proof is no longer valid. But one can actually quantitatively show what is happening is what would be expected. That would involve going through the actual "equations". Ever think of that?



EDIT



<>



I'm not surprised



<<, nor does it allow for your belief of runaway AGW. You see, at the very least, you must acknowledge that CO2 would have a logarithmic effect, not an exponential one. >>



The direct effect is logarithmic, but that does not include the positive feedback effects that then can make the system go wild.



<>



I can't figure out what you are saying, but I think you are saying that my test has no chance of going against me. Indeed it does have no such chance, and since if it does not go against me then CO2 MUST cause warming. That is why I am so sure of myself. Global warming theory hinges on things that we know with certainty to be true.



<>



If CO2 has a resonance in near the blackbody peak, then it MUST shift the balance, and it MUST cause warming. That is wgy I am completely closed to listening to "skeptics". I'd be no more willing to consider the views of global warming skeptics than I would be willing to consider the views of flat Earth people. A lot of people who are not scientists think science is about being "open minded", but in reality science is usually more about being closed minded. I'm not aware of any important scientist who was open-minded in the sense you guys use the term. Indeed, in any sense of the term, most important scientists were not open-minded, despite what you have been led to believe.

Answer 14

Good data (theirs); bad interpretation (yours)



The graph doesn't even show the last 100 years. the most recent data point in your link was 50 years ago, and was 0.4 degrees C or more warmer than data for 150 years ago, just like the "global warming advocates" say.



I've told deniers all this before on here, and never had an answer.

Answer 15

No. Historically, atmospheric carbon has peaked slightly AFTER temperature has peaked, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon-dioxide increases, but not the other way around. A common-cause hypothesis may explain the correlation, perhaps.



But this is NOT a problem at all for global warming advocates, for two reasons. One, they don't depend on facts, they depend on faith and spin. Two, the advocates have not put forward s single hypothesis which can be subjected to the scientific trial of subjective disproof. No matter what present or future facts show, the advocates have a variation of their faith to fit the facts.



If the anthropogenic carbon global warming concept was actually science, though, then such evidence would contribute to compelling disproof.



Edit: Some base their arguments on the natural release of CO2 from the oceans, after initial warming, and compare that to present ocean CO2 absorption to indicate an un-natural event. All this assumes the ocean-release to be a fact. Have you forgotten decomposition? Decomposing vegetation releases CO2, and it increases with temperature. That is the exact same carbon which the growing plants trapped from the atmosphere, being released in the natural (changing) cycle.

Answer 16

No, it's not a problem. No one has said that CO2 is the only driver of climate. Especially in areas with an extremely high albedo.



Edit: And CO2's answer continues to show ignorance, which I can only conclude is intentional as he does seem like a rather intelligent person at times. CO2... this has been stated over and over again in every thread that is brought up concerning past temp changes. And the exact same answers are given time and time again. Even in this thread there are numerous answers stating exactly what I stated.

Answer 17

The ftp links timeout for me.



I don't think any advocates disagree that CO2 can be lagging or it can be a driver.



What struck me from looking that the snow accumulation and temperature data was that increased temperatures led to increased snow accumulation. I guess that debunks the favorite denier argument that since they are getting a lot of snow that global warming is not happening.



In addition, nobody should think that Greenland alone gives the whole picture of the global climate. Greenland's climate is very dependent on the gulf stream and any small changes in the gulf stream have significant impacts in Greenland.

Answer 18

Jeff's answer cracks me up and reminds me why I don't take them seriously. Nothing can disprove AGW. They can find some way to wiggle out of anything. Why? Because they have made no predictions that are testable. Their idea is not falsifiable. Thye point to a 0.74 degree increase in the last 100 years, half of which came before 1950 and this is the reason we should be afraid of exponential warming. They can barely show that the world's temp is even increasing, let alone cause by CO2, let alone caused by man's addition of CO2 and I accept all of these as true. But that's not enough for them, they want me to beleive that the temp increase of 0.007 degrees per year will soon increase by a factor of 20, jsut to make their doomsday predictions possible. They want me to pretend like the MWP didn't even happen. Funny that this Ice core data shows the MWP, guess that's just a coincidence.



AGW works perfectly as science as long as you are willing to ignore any data that disagrees.





Beren,

The snow accumulation that the skeptics were mentioning were located in places like Texas and Florida, which DO require lower temps. Using area weather patterns to generalize for the entire globe is wrong, thus this is a flawed argument, but not for the reason you give. Further, to bring up this reference as being wrong can only be done if you do not bring up local weather patterns either, which AGWers have been as notorious for doing as skeptics.





Paul's Alias,



Excellent point. CO2 both creates warming and is created by warming. Thus there is both a cause and effect going on between CO2 and temps. When the modelers were using the correlation between CO2 and temp in the past, this correlation showed both the cause and effect. All future CO2 added by man, however, only fall under the causing warming portion, thus the correlation from the past is always too strong and shows CO2 to have too much effect. Unless the scientists were able to differentiate the cause and effect portion of the CO2. Do you have any research suggesting that they were able to do this or even tried? Elsewise, how can you argue that they are not, by their methods, going to overestimate the effect of CO2.



As for your blackbody spectrum, it does not effect my viewpoints in the slightest, nor does it allow for your belief of runaway AGW. You see, at the very least, you must acknowledge that CO2 would have a logarithmic effect, not an exponential one. Also, why would you consider something that is already a known to be a good method for falsifiability. That is just silly logic. Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is only falsifiable by one method?



JimZ,

Agreed, Kudos to Dana for that. I myself have only blocked Littlerobber, because she blocked me and somebody that emailed me constantly trying to convert me to Mormonism.





Paul B,

You are ignoring that the temps show the MWP to be at the max >2 degrees warmer. You "noninclusion" of the last 100 years does not explain away 2 degrees. 1 yes, 2 no.



Benjamin,



That is just a stupid question. Do we know that output of the sun for the past million years? Do we know any of the millions of variables that would affect temps in the last million years? No. We think we know CO2 concentrations over this period of time, but the surrogates that we use are not even accurate for the time we do know. In other words, you are asking for a good theory behind all temp changes from the past, when the truth is that there currently is no good theory, and only one in which they have had to place too much emphasis on the few factors that they can gather from that far back in time. Look at the list of the current variables that go into modeling the temp and tell me how many of those variables can we find even 100 years ago. You think it is enough to claim suffiecient understanding?



Doubtful, but they do have some CO2 info. Now since CO2 has both a cause and effect portion, it is a good indicator of temps, but that does not make it a driver. In fact if the effect portion of CO2 increasing because temps increase is much more than the cause portion of CO2 causing increases in temps, then how would you know? Further, would this not show that CO2 will cause some warming, but runaway AGW is not plausible?



Dana,

Unfortuantely you are missing the point. If historically it acted more as an effect of warming, then all of the historical information for determining the strength of CO2 as a driver is useless, because as YOU have stated, it is acting differently. Thus how can you have any confidence in the models?



Dana,

Your link is funny. Couldn't get past the Scenario B overestimated, but was the closest, when if you look at temps from differing sources, Scenario C was the best with NO PREDICTED RUNAWAY WARMING. That's the site you referenced. LOL. You make me laugh. Seriously, Do you place these links knowing they can be easily refuted by anyone that can read scientific literature assuming that most can't? Or do you not know how to, so you think they thoroughly prove your point?



From your other link, "Finally, a disclaimer. I’m not an expert in any of this, by any stretch of the imagination." Thanks for the third hand information.



Dana,

Here is some Logic 101.

If CO2 had no warming effect at all, but did increase as temp increases, then you would still see correlation, but any models would be completely useless as this new CO2 was arrtificially added.

If CO2 had only a warming effect with no increase in CO2 caused by temp increases, then the models would be accurately portraying what happens.



What we currently have is something in between. You don't answer how accommodations are made for this in between scenario. You just throw out some silly Climate 101 idiocy. Can I assume this means that they did not account for this apparent overestimation or that you do not know? I tried to make the explanation simple enough for you to follow, let me know if I need to make it simpler.

Answer 19

Thank You my friend. Very good links, and well thought out. Not all that crazy leftists media hype.

I love how they try to justify Al Gore buying a 9 mil dollar beach front house, when he actually testified in front of congress a couple years ago that he was non-profit and that oceans are rising. What a crock !!!!

I think the biggest problem with the advocates is that about 17 years ago, when Maurice Strong was still with the U.N. he paid some scientist to compromise the statistics so the U.N., media, public, and schools, would be taken in with the hoax. Knowing dam well, he was just in it for the money.

It's the same when doctors were paid in the 50's and 60's by the tobacco companies to say that it doesn't cause cancer.

But people are gullible.....what can I say?

Answer 20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

shows the last 400,000 years, with carbon concentrations (maximum about 280 ppm)



and



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

shows the "Keeling Curve" with carbon now over 380ppm

Answer 21

Virtually everything that is factual is a problem for AGW theory.



It is a lie wrapped in fear promoted by liars.



They're so good at lying they don't even know they're doing it any more.

Answer 22

Another point in question, wouldn't the advocates for global warming want the CO2 to go up, afterall, plants thrive on it, do they not? That would help make the world more green.