JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The 800 year lag – graphed

Carbon follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

  • NOTE 1: What really matters here are the turning points, not the absolute levels.
  • NOTE 2: The carbon data is unfortunately far less detailed than the temperature data.
    Beware of making conclusions about turning points
    or lags when only one single point may be involved.
  • NOTE 3: The graph which illustrates the lag the best, and also has the most carbon data
    is 150,000-100,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

Permission for use: These images are available for media and non-profit use. As a courtesy please email me “joanne AT joannenova.com.au” (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’). Thank you. There are also larger files available in tif format for printing. Click on the link to the right hand side of each graph.

Note: The temperatures here are measured in relation to the present temperature. In other words, most of the time for the last million years it’s been much colder.

MORE INFO

Other posts on Vostok Ice Cores.

REFERENCES

  • Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
  • Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
  • Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in  Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
  • Mudelsee (2001) - Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
  • Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.

Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image
Click here for a larger TIFF imageor.. JPG image


Last Update: Aug 18 2013 adding page links.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (35 votes cast)
The 800 year lag - graphed, 8.7 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

60 comments to The 800 year lag – graphed

  • #

    [...] Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years, as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] is indeed not from a scientific source. Little bit of detective work shows that this is yet another blog post graph you are showing. It says that the graph has been "scaled" so that the lag is visible to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] trend to note here is that the concentration of CO2 seems to lag behind changes in temperature.  It appears that the fluctuations in temperature actually cause CO2 levels to fluctuate [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] CO2, it is a likely assumption to state that with warmer temperatures the ocean lets off more CO2. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3…-and-ice-ages/ The main point to be made here is CO2 [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] (2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect. [...]


    Report this

    11

  • #

    [...] [...](2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect. [...]


    Report this

    21

  • #

    [...] for CO2 in the upper atmosphere to warm the lower. The greenhouse isn’t sealed. Rising CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming, not a [...]


    Report this

    01

  • #

    [...] Les carottes glaciaires montrent que les taux de CO2 suivent les changements de température plusieurs centaines d’années après. VOIR LES GRAPHIQUES DE VOSTOK. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Les carottes glaciaires montrent que les taux de CO2 suivent les changements de température plusieurs centaines d’années après. VOIR LES GRAPHIQUES DE VOSTOK. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] cover over 600,000 years, so the 800 year lag is to miniscule to see with the naked eye. If you zoom in on the graph, the lag is [...]


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #

    [...] At least according to the valsock Ice core samplings.The opposite has historicly never occured. The 800 year lag – graphed « JoNova I have three questions. One; What heat event 600 to 800 years ago caused our current increases in [...]


    Report this

    11

  • #
  • #

    [...] not like Lake Vostok was that important, it only provides a peek into 400,000 years of temperature and CO2 data.  Scientists still disagree about what the data shows, which makes the Russian decision to pour [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] de faire ce lien dans son film bourré de mensonges, mais dans la réalité, l’étude des carottes de glaces de Vostok montrent que durant les nombreux changements climatiques qui se sont produits durant les derniers [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] telling us of the lack of warming for the past decade, correcting the public misperceptions of the Vostok ice cores or just more outrageous [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] to watch, but it is worth noting the interviewer’s interesting perspective on the 800 year lag in the Vostok ice cores, who seems to think the heat and carbon record speak for themselves, and that the debate is over. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scarlet Pumpernickel

    The CO2 follows life. More life = more CO2 around, less life less CO2. It is not a function of temperature but life on earth itself….

    Hotter = more life

    Colder = less life

    That’s why CO2 can be high and we can fall into an ice age, then life dies and CO2 drops


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Hi Nova, I’m sure this has been pointed out to you before ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html ) but the lag is not proof that CO2 is not a GHG.

    Had you taken the time to read the science YOU CITE you might have realised this and saved yourself the embarrasment.

    Caillon et al 2003 says …

    The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.

    (The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric
    greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases
    with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the
    gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon
    in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (240,000 years before the
    present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change,
    although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination
    III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
    800  200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
    ) CTS

    (I posted the Abstract because it does not support your quote.Which is speculative and unsupported in the paper.Meanwhile the ABSTRACT make it clear that some other cause for the warming went on for many centuries,without the help of CO2.Realcimate make the same error as you do.Assume that magically after 800 years +/- 200 years of sleeping.It takes over the warming cause and go on from there.All without evidence that it happened that way.) CTS


    Report this

    42

    • #
      Tristan

      As you may have noticed blimey, there is no such thing as ‘too debunked’ on this website. Every argument for climate inaction gets trotted out from time to time.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Tristan

      Jo, you say that the CO2 lag is proof that CO2 is not a major driver of climate. When faced with the response of ‘C02 amplifies the warming’ you contend that this would result in a runaway greenhouse effect.
      However, this is not the case. Positive feedback only progresses to infinity if the feedback is larger than the inputs. Given the positive feedback between temp:C02 is smaller than the input, you can find the theoretical end point of the cycle via limit theorem.

      As for Cook, I don’t see what he has to do with my comment but he can defend himself if he cares to. I certainly don’t share all of his opinions.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    @CTS – would you mind posting in your own post rather than editing mine when it’s not necessary.

    I am pointing out that scientists agree that during the interglacials, CO2 lagged temperature – it acted as a feedback and helped warm the planet more than would have been possible from the Milankovitch cycles alone.

    This time the GHGs we emit are the initial force rather than the much slower solar forcing changes due to Milankovitch cycles.

    (Since you bring up the interglacial periods.How come CO2 increase very slowly for thousands of years from the estimated 180 ppm to 280 ppm.While temperature several times changed radically for centuries of several degrees?

    This present interglacial has been cooling for thousands of years now.The charts are right here in this blog:

    LINK to CHARTS

    Both VOSTOCK and GREENLAND ice core data shows this very clearly) CTS


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Blimey / Brendon:
    1. I have never said “the lag is proof that CO2 is not a GHG.” You can apologize for the misquote when what I did say is written on this very page. Perhaps you could read it?
    2. I read Callion: He has no evidence in his paper to back up that statement you quote, it’s just pure speculation. That he said it rather proves that people have to write bland mindless caveats into their papers in order to get published.
    3. Tristan: Just because John Cook reckons something is so doesn’t make it true. Indeed when I have bothered to debunk Cook, Cook had no reply, and didn’t apologize for all his errors, or his use of a flagrantly deceptive graph either.
    4. Blimey, my moderators can write where ever they so choose. Get over it. If you lift your standards and quote me instead of attacking strawmen they won’t have the urge to write all over your sloppy comments eh?
    5. Go on, both of you, find one paper that calculates climate sensitivity due to CO2 (ie.demonstrating the positive feedbacks) from the ice core data post 1999.


    Report this

    01

  • #

    Joanne Nova says:

    1. I have never said “the lag is proof that CO2 is not a GHG.” You can apologize for the misquote when what I did say is written on this very page. Perhaps you could read it?

    I apologise. I’m glad you agree CO2 is a GHG and it has a warming effect. From the way you go on about the lag so much it appears as if you think CO2 does not have a warming effect. To the casual reader it looks almost as if you are intentionally misleading them.

    [I have repeated that CO2 causes minor warming maybe 100 times on my blog. Only a religious reader could ignore that. JN]

    2. I read Callion: He has no evidence in his paper to back up that statement you quote, it’s just pure speculation. That he said it rather proves that people have to write bland mindless caveats into their papers in order to get published.

    And your peer-reviewed rebuttal can be found where exactly?

    [I'm just stating the obvious. Go read Caillon and find the evidence within it that supports that speculative statement.
    If a scientific paper said 2+2=5, (pace Keenan) I don't need to publish a peer reviewed paper to point out the flaw. JN]

    What’s the term for cherry picking out only the small section of science that supports your own beliefs and ignoring the rest? Oh that’s right, it’s “cherry picking”.

    [...Also known as IPCC standard procedure. JN]

    I don’t mind dispensing with poor science, should it turn out to be that way, but you need to back up your claim with evidence, not just your own opinion.

    [I did. See my commentary and graphs on this page. JN]

    3. Tristan: Just because John Cook reckons something is so doesn’t make it true.

    It’s the science Cook cites that’s important, and he doesn’t cherry pick just a piece of abstract.

    [How is it cherry picking when I'm talking about his major conclusion, backed by the evidence in his paper? Do you think I'm supposed to reprint speculative caveats which have no data to back them up every time too? JN]

    Indeed when I have bothered to debunk Cook, Cook had no reply, and didn’t apologize for all his errors, or his use of a flagrantly deceptive graph either.

    I’ve not seen CO2Science correct their graph on ocean acidification either.

    [So I gather you concede that Cook used a deceptive graph, perhaps unwittingly, but never disclosed that to his readers, or objected to it's use... JN]

    4. Blimey, my moderators can write where ever they so choose. Get over it. If you lift your standards and quote me instead of attacking strawmen they won’t have the urge to write all over your sloppy comments eh?

    CTS’s posting an abstract had nothing to do with my standard of comment.

    I agree your moderators can and will write wherever they like. That doesn’t make it appropriate. The copy/paste of an abstract, without any comment from the moderator added nothing to this discussion. They would have been better to cite the abstract and explain their reasoning for the citation.

    Doing so in a new post rather than editing my post will make this topic flow better.

    5. Go on, both of you, find one paper that calculates climate sensitivity due to CO2 (ie.demonstrating the positive feedbacks) from the ice core data post 1999.

    Really Jo? You’ve agreed that CO2 is a GHG (thus it traps heat – and you seem to agree on this although you’ve a slightly twisted concept of climate sensitivity -it’s not specific to CO2 but to any forcing. Perhaps your confused because it is quite often expressed as per doubling of CO2). You’ve also agreed that Temperature controlled CO2.

    So when the temperature rises, the CO2 levels increase and therefore, because CO2 is a GHG then it causes even more heating. That’s a positive feedback.

    I’m not sure why you wish to venture into climate sensitivity at this point, but here’s an answer for you anyway.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf

    [Thanks. I'll reply to that in a comment when I have time to look at it. But I must say I'll be amazed if it's not just another model guesstimate. JN]

    … global climate sensitivity including the slow surface albedo feedback is 1.5°C per W/m2 or 6°C for doubled CO2 (Fig. 2), twice as large as the Charney fastfeedback sensitivity.

    Or perhaps you could have looked at any of the others I listed last time you made this request instead of ignoring me.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Tristan #20.2 Yes, exactly — What I said was nothing like what Blimey claimed. You’re sorry about that right?

    As for Cook, you “me too’ed” 100% of Blimey’s proof (which was the Cook link and the speculative caveat). You own it too.

    As for the “runaway” greenhouse effect. I realize that f < unity does not guarantee a runaway effect. But f = .65 (IPCC) is still so high in a multivariate system that it's inherently unstable. All it takes is a few other parameters to shift through their natural ranges and given a billion years, would go off the scale. No natural stable state has a positive feedback as wildly high as 0.65.

    See my point 5 above. The Climate Scare has no paper to support their claims of amplification. It's speculation. Is it 0.1, or 0.65? Who knows, but based on the past 500 million years 0.65 is highly unlikely.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey / Brendan / whoeveryouare, you write so much inconsequential baseless stuff (see my inline replies above) that on those 1 in 100 comments when you write something that matters I do miss it.

    Thanks for the papers, now to show that you have read them and know something about them and are not just here to waste my time, you can explain in your own words how they calculated climate sensitivity due to CO2 and whether it was empirical as I asked for, or just based on models that we know to be fatally flawed.

    Of course, you have read the papers haven’t you? You aren’t just taking them on “faith”?


    Report this

    11

  • #

    [I have repeated that CO2 causes minor warming maybe 100 times on my blog. Only a religious reader could ignore that. JN]

    But once again you fail to quantify that amount, nor do you present any science to support your view. “Blogger science” is worthless.

    Que? You misquoted me, apologized, and now expect me to quantify how many times you were wrong?

    [I'm just stating the obvious. Go read Caillon and find the evidence within it that supports that speculative statement.
    If a scientific paper said 2+2=5, (pace Keenan) I don't need to publish a peer reviewed paper to point out the flaw. JN]

    Caillon is not stating that 2+2=5, Caillon states that CO2 is a feedback. This is not speculative, but based on the knowledge that CO2 is a GHG and that Temperature was causing CO2 levels to rise, both which you agreed.

    This means CO2 was acting as a positive feedback. For you to state that you no longer wish to agree with Caillon on this point is like having a logical disagreement with yourself.

    OK, you admit you can’t find any evidence in the Caillon paper to back up his statements on feedback.

    [...Also known as IPCC standard procedure. JN]

    So you don’t deny cherry picking? You’re happy to cherry pick and thereby deliberately mislead people. Interesting!

    And you can’t find an example of me cherry picking. the best you can do is read something that wasn’t there, and leap with wild inferred excitement to the “proof” of something you want to find.

    And so can you show me where in the IPCC report they cherry pick temperature data the same way you do?

    Blimey/Brendan/anonymous fan, we did this to death. You accuse me of not explaining every caveat in a headline, even though I got the text right.

    [I did. See my commentary and graphs on this page. JN]

    You have written nothing that contradicts Caillon suggestion that CO2 is a positive feedback.

    I’m not the one pretending that Caillon is evidence for positive feedback. You are. You find the observations. I said they’re NOT there. I’ll quote the evidence he didn’t provide “……”. Does that help?

    [So I gather you concede that Cook used a deceptive graph, perhaps unwittingly, but never disclosed that to his readers, or objected to it's use... JN]

    No, I’m not aware of the graph you refer to.

    See here

    I am aware that CO2Science Hides the Decline when they present unrealistic CO2 level projections.

    Idso quotes 1100 studies to show that acidification is not the guaranteed disaster that it’s made out to be, and you find one study of the 1100 that says that one of the many species that benefit from more CO2 is an algae? That’s it? And many of the other papers you find quote damage at very low pH’s, which will not occur in the next 3000 years.

    [Thanks. I'll reply to that in a comment when I have time to look at it. But I must say I'll be amazed if it's not just another model guesstimate. JN]

    Where can I find your method of determining climate sentivity? How do YOU calculate a projection for comparison against empirical data?

    (Please don’t go citing Idso again – we’ve been down that path and Idso’s methods were fundamentally flawed such that today NO climate scientist, even skeptical ones, accept his findings.)

    Brimey, I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do. Oh look an anonymous commenter reckons climate scientist Idso is “flawed”, based on… his opinion.

    Blimey / Brendan / whoeveryouare, you write so much inconsequential baseless stuff (see my inline replies above) that on those 1 in 100 comments when you write something that matters I do miss it.

    I see your skill with statistics is inversely proportional to that of your cherry picking ability. ;)

    [Cherry picking = 0. Skill with stats = infinite. You are far too kind.]

    Thanks for the papers, now to show that you have read them and know something about them and are not just here to waste my time, you can explain in your own words how they calculated climate sensitivity due to CO2 and whether it was empirical as I asked for, or just based on models that we know to be fatally flawed.

    Oh a tangent question not in the least bit connected to why CO2 is a feedback – FWIW …

    No. not a tangent. That is the whole point. You claim the climate sensitivity is high, but you can’t name any empirical evidence to back it up.

    No Jo, I’m not a climate scientist and whilst I can follow the basics I am quite happy to admit that the more advanced workings are beyond my current understanding. But that’s the difference between you and I. I’m an expert in a completely different field and I will concede that the experts in the field of climatology know a lot more about it than I do. Another difference between you and I is that acccept all of the science unless new science shows it to be flawed. And that science MUST come from the peer-reviewed process, whilst not perfect, it’s certainly much better than making crap up and posting it on a blogger website.

    I will also take this opportunity to once again point out they even I with my limited knowledge know that you are wrong when you say … “Climate sensitivity refers to carbon dioxide’s effect on the climate.”. Whilst often expressed per doubling of CO2, climate sensitivity is the temperature response to a given amount of radiative forcing, no matter what the source of forcing.

    Hence you can even estimate the climate sensitivity from ice cores where the solar forcing drove the change.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sample_calculation_using_ice-age_data

    Of course, you have read the papers haven’t you? You aren’t just taking them on “faith”?

    People that have spent many years studying the science in one area are generally much better at it than some blogger on the internet. Especially when that blogger is easily exposed for their cherry picking methods and lack of understand in even something so basic as the definition of climate sensitivity.

    Yeah, I’ll accept the scientific consensus on matters that are beyond my own understanding every single time.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I’m not a climate scientist and whilst I can follow the basics I am quite happy to admit that the more advanced workings are beyond my current understanding.

    So you concede you take those papers on “faith” and can’t explain how they calculated climate sensitivity. (I looked btw, and they are based on models.)

    Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out. We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.

    Yawn, In the end, basically I’m “wrong” because I’m a blogger. It doesn’t matter how much evidence I cite, nor the impeccable logic I speak, nor that I quote experts. If I was a certified expert, you’d know I was right, even if I disagreed with other certified experts (and they’d be right too, of course).
    What a bog-of-confusion.

    It’s known as argument from authority, and there is no point continuing the conversation. There is nothing I could say that would change your mind. You are stuck in the stone age logic of pandering to your chosen Gods.

    I’ve added in a few inline comments above, some of the non-sequiteurs are not worth cut and pasting. They don’t make sense even in context.


    Report this

    11

  • #

    Que? You misquoted me, apologized, and now expect me to quantify how many times you were wrong?

    No, I expect you to read properly and quantify the “minor” effect. You don’t provide any scientific evidence for why you think the CO2 effect is minor.

    See “evidence” in the site index.

    Contrast that to the science in the IPCC report which shows the amount of forcing GHG have.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-2-23.jpg

    When will you provide such evidence or analysis?

    See “evidence” in the site index.

    [snip incoherent ]

    And you can’t find an example of me cherry picking. the best you can do is read something that wasn’t there, and leap with wild inferred excitement to the “proof” of something you want to find.

    [snip repetitive - he sill can't provide any evidence to back up the Caillon speculative caveat.]

    Did you miss the post about you cherry picking UAH data in your handbook?

    UAH data agree with both major radiosondes sets. RSS is known to have a warm bias. Your team pick GISS all the time because it’s the highest.

    https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/theres-been-no-warming-since-2001-er-no-better-make-that-2010/

    Blimey/Brendan/anonymous fan, we did this to death. You accuse me of not explaining every caveat in a headline, even though I got the text right.

    No I accused you of cherry picking. You accept only the science that supports your preconceived opinion and you reject out of hand anything you disagree with, even when it is pointed out that you never supply evidence to support your position.

    except for hundreds of posts when I do. See “evidence” in the site index. See also “New Here”, The Skeptics Handbook I and II.

    [snip off topic]

    [snip baby-like bluster without any reference or substantiation].

    Idso quotes 1100 studies to show that acidification is not the guaranteed disaster that it’s made out to be, and you find one study of the 1100 that says that one of the many species that benefit from more CO2 is an algae? That’s it? And many of the other papers you find quote damage at very low pH’s, which will not occur in the next 3000 years.

    No, I picked out the most obvious one to demonstrate why Idso’s shallow analysis method is flawed.

    And I listed numerous other problems here … https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/nova-on-acid/ … to which you seem oblivious or lack the ability to counter argue.
    [snip condescending vacuous non-reason]

    [snip, irrational. When you give us your real name we will bother to spell it properly]

    [snip more bluster with no substantiation]

    Oh look an anonymous commenter reckons climate scientist Idso is “flawed”, based on… his opinion.

    By anonymous blogger, do you mean climate scientist publishing in peer-reviewed journals?

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/

    Idso’s methods do not get repeated these days by any other climate scientist. That’s because they were shown to be flawed, not because I said so.

    [snip - see my comment below]

    [Cherry picking = 0. Skill with stats = infinite. You are far too kind.]

    [snip bluster]

    No. not a tangent. That is the whole point. You claim the climate sensitivity is high, but you can’t name any empirical evidence to back it up.

    Gosh it’s remarkable that you write this and COMPLETELY IGNORE THE LINK GIVEN WHICH SHOWS THE CALCULATION BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

    This is what I mean by incoherent. Which link? What paper? What evidence? See below in my comment.

    [snip baseless repetition]

    So you concede you take those papers on “faith” and can’t explain how they calculated climate sensitivity.

    (I looked btw, and they are based on models.)

    [snip bluster]

    We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.

    Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out.

    It’s always been problematic. But that begs the question, how do you know it’s low or is this just more of your wishful thinking without evidence?

    We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.

    Transient sensitivity is defined as 20 years and even that’s lower and shorter than equilibrium conditions. I suggest you try again Nova, perhaps after you understand the definition.

    [Which agrees with my point. The data from ice cores doesn't have the resolution even if it is a 20 year "equilibrium. ]

    Yawn, In the end, basically I’m “wrong” because I’m a blogger.

    No, you seem to be wrong because you fail to look at ALL of the evidence.

    You are wrong because you cherry pick only the small sections of data that agree with your viewpoint and ignore all other science that shows the planet is warming.

    You are not right simply because you state something. You need to follow that up with evidence. Scientific evidence.

    Note: he/ she/ it /they don’t provide any convincing evidence.

    It doesn’t matter how much evidence I cite

    I’ve asked for your calculations on climate sensitivity estimates many times already. Your answer is “I don’t calculate a “projection”.The modelers do.”.

    See “evidence” in the site index. I list hundreds of papers.

    That’s not supplying evidence.

    [snip off-topic repetition I've already answered]
    [snip irrational]

    nor that I quote experts

    [snip incoherent. I have never once said CO2 is not a feedback. ]

    [snip bluster]

    It’s known as argument from authority

    And on a topic where you can’t get the definition of climate sensitivity right, let alone begin to calculate it, yes I’ll take their opinion over yours EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    [snip drivel]

    As said before, you can always ask for polite clarification rather than pretending a question doesn’t make sense.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    To Anonymous ——, site policy is that we simply don’t have the time to edit comments. Nor do we normally allow someone who repeatedly breaks laws of reason to comment. You’ve admitted you use argument from authority as your main “analysis tool”.

    Obviously, whoever is writing the Blimey stuff fails that logic bar, and self-editing requirement completely. I should have kept the ban on (he’s been blocked once as “Brendan” and using two identities is another reason to ban). But since sometimes he posts a link to an interesting paper I allowed him, it, her, them, to post, just in case he could point to another interesting paper. Silly me.

    It’s easy to waste a bloggers time. Blimey tactics:
    1. Post long link-filled comments, where most of the sentences are written in condescending smug bombastic terms, often incoherent too.
    2. Post links to papers he doesn’t understand and can’t explain or discuss the evidence. But then claim unscientifically, that they must be right, they are peer reviewed, and from an expert. This guarantees no real scientific dialogue is possible. He has an infinite number of irrelevant, flawed, incomplete, out of date papers to draw on, and no need to read them first.
    3. Accuse me of deceiving people but hypocritically get huffy when I point out he writes in an incoherent style. He expects me to ask for “clarification”, but he’s free to invent insults.
    4. Demand I justify points which I’ve blogged on repeatedly but who are too lazy to use my index. (See “evidence”, and “New Here?”)
    5. Invent strawmen. eg “Like the way you contradict yourself on CO2 being a feedback. Ooops!”
    6. React with faux indignation at non-points, ie defending his anonymous pseudonym.
    7. Go off topic,
    8. Repeat steps 1 – 7 ad nauseum.

    No I don’t have time to get into long conversations with anonymous time wasters.

    For the Record:

    The Idso rebuttals he quoted are an fallacious ad hom, they are:
    1/ about Craig Idso’s father
    2/ written about different papers to the ones I quote on another topic.
    3/ Was rebutted and updated years ago by Sherwood Idso (as it happens)

    He/she/it discounts all of one man’s work based on attacks on his father. Then cherry picks papers (the idso rebuttal was from the same edition of the journal he quotes above, but he didn’t list it), and accuse me of cherry picking. (I prefer the UAH series BTW because 1 it agrees with the radiosondes best in the Upper T, 2/ the other satellite series RSS is known to have a slight warm bias, 3/ Giss et al uses ground stations are near airports and tarmacs.)

    The single point in his long comment that relates to the original post, and the evidence, is a repeat assertion about “a paper” (as usual, he don’t tell us which paper, just refer to “one of the links” above) said this:

    “We can use this empirically derived climate sensitivity to predict the temperature rise from a forcing of 4 W/m2, arising from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels. The result is a predicted temperature increase of 3 °C.”

    I did read all the papers he suggested in a comment above — Hansen 2008, Royer 2007, Chylek 2008. Royer and Chylek are models as I expected. If he meant Hansen 2008? – he didn’t read it — Hansens aim to “verify” models with paleo data. It’s the “best” but horribly confounded, very circular, and demonstrates nothing. That’s why even Hansen didn’t get excited about this paper.
    It doesn’t have the resolution to test cause and effect. They assume a climate sensitivity of 3/4°C per W/m2 and then use models to calculate a global temperature scale, which not surprisingly fits the known pattern, which proves nothing. With a flawed model, and sea levels (at a resolution of a few thousands years) they can produce a graph a lot like “the real one”. But temperatures drive the CO2 curve, and they also drive sea levels. It’s just not possible to extract the climate sensitivity from that confounded mix.

    The neolithic unscientific reasoning “by authority”, and ad homs don’t meet the standards of logic for commenters here. For the minimal benefit of dubious papers he brings, he requires too much editing.

    No more from Brendan-blimey. I’ll go back to unpacking people with real names, who write material coherent enough to be published by real news sources.

    Jo

    The Evidence:

    The repeated request for evidence from someone too lazy to look before scoffing with fake zeal: From the New Here page:

    there is no empirical (by observation) evidence that net feedbacks (mostly clouds and humidity) will amplify the warming in the long run.
    Humidity will rise, sure, but it can rain out or form low clouds. This is what the trillion dollar bet is about. Will humidity hang around and thicken the “blanket”, or not? While the simulations say “yes”, the observations say “No”. Measurements of satellites, cloud cover changes, 3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons looking at temperature or humidity can’t find the warming that the models predict. The heat is not in the upper troposphere (the hot spot is missing) and, importantly, while ocean heat has been rising for decades, it isn’t rising fast enough. There is no hidden heat accumulating there.

    Off the top of my head: Lindzen and Choi 2011 (and 2010), Douglass and Keen (Argo), Christie et al 2010, McKitrick 2010 (and correngium updated 2011). Spencer and Braswell 2010 updated 2011. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. 2010.

    ——————

    PS: Seriously Blimey– it’s been nice, and I’m flattered and all — wish I had the time to keep helping you with the basics of logic and sentence construction, but I have to get back to writing about people who have reputations that matter. I do hope you graduate to a real name one day. You have potential.


    Report this

    01

  • #

    [...] how about the fact that the earth gets warm, then 800 years later, CO2 levels decide to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome  ice cores show that  the temperature rises before the atmospheric [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    agwnonsense

    Are these people for real? Well they are welcome to join John Cook and Tim Flummery et.al feeding –it and CO2 to my Rose’s and veggies they grow so much better.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is life.We live in a beautiful ever changing World,stop moaning and enjoy it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] ages.The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome  ice cores show that  the temperature rises before the atmospheric [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] ages. The current evidence is equivocal because of the low accuracy of the measurements, but, as has been recently shown by Joanne Nova , the Vostok and Law Dome ice cores show that the temperature rises before the atmospheric carbon [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] questioning whether it will really make you happy. Oh the dilemma of the tree hugger………. The ice cores tell us Co2 follows temperature by hundreds of years, therefore logically the rise in Co2 is a result of warming, not a cause. Tree rings are a circus, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y.  (2003).  Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III.  Science 299: 1728-1731. [Discussion, CO2science] [Graphs] [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    How bout some evidence gas extracted from ice cores are in a pristine state and accurately represent atmospheric conditions that are contemporary with the formation of the ice…..

    AFAIK that evidence doesn’t exist. It is an assumption.
    If that assumption is wrong. The house of cards collapses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] une illustration, parmi beaucoup d'autres, de ces retards CO2/Température, tels que tirée des données officielles [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nando

    Love the debate.

    While many of us humans have got a lot to answer for, I think my government and the media are picking the arguments that suit them and then using them to exaggerate the extent of our initial influence on the atmosphere. My biggest concern is what those in government say are our duties and responsibilities to somehow slow or stop or reverse(?!!!) the climatic variations by paying a new carbon tax.

    I saw this lag of temperature increase with my students – years ago and it fascinated us then. Initially counter-intuitive, we then accepted that the mechanisms are more complex than we ever imagined. While we’re not fearful, we ARE fascinated. Milankovitch is a bit of a hero.

    Could you please direct me to other blogs that have got this debate going?

    To the real point of this post: I just read a news article that states: “The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has broken above 400 parts per million for the first time in three million year(sic),indicating a record level for greenhouse gases.”

    If Vostok ice core data looks at the last 400,000 years or so, where is the data obtained for the 2,600,000 years before that?

    Thank you Joanne and others.

    Nando


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    WheresWallace

    The climate scientist Waleed Abdalati mentions this lag and points out that the increase in temps happens much faster than the cooling events, an indication that the greenhouse gas slows the cooling part of the Milankovitch cycle.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GveM2ygxOLg


    Report this

    01

  • #

    The interesting part of the Vostok ice core is not the increase in temperature from a glaciation to an interglacial. The opposite period is far more interesting.

    Have a look at the 150-100 kyear period:

    During the warming 135-130 kyear, there is a huge overlap between temperature increase and CO2 increase. That allows the modellers to include an important influence from CO2 on temperature.
    But in the period 125-115 kyears, temperatures (and CH4 levels) go down until a new minimum (and land ice to a new maximum), while CO2 levels remain high. When CO2 levels ultimately go down with ~40 ppmv, there is no discernable influence on temperature (or ice sheet formation). That points to a low response of temperature to CO2 levels…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] 6 – The Vostok Ice Core Data shows we’ve seen temperatures and CO2 levels like this before and more importantly, CO2 levels follow temperature changes (not the other way around) – see here. [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rob Sparrow

    Has anyone factored in the effect of the latent heat of fusion? Clearly to melt so much ice there has to be huge heat input without any rise in temperature. Once a dynamic equilibrium has been reached, continued heat input will cause a temperature increase. Clearly in previous interglacial cycles there was little to zero human impact. With the current latter stage of a warming cycle it appears that humans may well have increased concentrations of carbon dioxide but surely it is not proven that this is causing catastrophic results

    [Rob, I am sure that latent heat is included in model calcs. - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] provide a link to debunk perhaps the most important image in the history of global warmism, Al Gore’s Ice Core chart. Recall how important this was in forming the myth? Note that, it turned out the rise in CO2 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve linked this page in a post that goes through some of the images that were used to lead the Crowd-think into Global Warmism.
    http://whyarethingsthisway.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    replicant

    So uh, where’s your graph that tells us what will happen when the CO2 hits 400? And 500? And 600? Where’s your graph that tells us what the temperature will be when atmospheric soot and sulfer dioxide and methane doubles from our present amounts. Let’s see, we’ve added a whole bunch of shit in the last 100 years. We should be able to double that in say only another 50 years. Where’s your graph that tells us this has no effect on temperature? Where’s your graph that shows that all this shit follows temperature and not the other way around? Where’s your graph that shows what happens when somebody dumps 300 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere before any of the natural processes are even anywhere near the required conditions for releasing CO2?

    ["Whole bunch of shit" is exactly how much?] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    replicant

    ["Whole bunch of shit" is exactly how much?] ED

    Quite a bit. Enough that vision is greatly diminished. Sunlight amount reaching Earth is greatly diminished. Enough that a brown haze is visible over the entire globe and there are pockets where that brown haze is easily visible from space. In other words a huge pile of shit that no present plant or animal has ever had to deal with. At least not in a time frame that is meaningful to a Homo Sapien. And certainly not any doubling of these amounts. Exactly when do you want to say enough is enough? Or is it always a dictum that if lots is good then more should be just about right? We are already in uncharted territory. To continue on this path is suicidal.

    This of course brings up the next point. I have never been able to understand the purpose of relating present conditions to conditions we think may have existed 65 million years ago. 65 million years? There is nothing to suggest man would survive even one single glaciation cycle (because he hasn’t), much less the changes recorded during a 65 million year period. Or any alternate climates within those 65 million years. And by all accounts considering the care he feels for this planet and the abuse heaped on those idiotic tree huggers, I would have to say he will never make even that one single cycle. 65 million years is just a nebulous dream. There is not any indication that he would survive outside the climatic conditions in which he developed. The neanderthal became extinct and he was more robust and had a bigger brain than ours. Our present course of action does not engender much hope. Being arrogant and conceited and certain of our chances are not character traits the forces of nature has much regard for. IMO


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Replicant, I have good news for you. For 90% of man’s existence it’s been an ice age (aka a glaciation cycle). Somehow, without electricity, we survived.

      But if you are worried about real pollution. Join the club. The biggest obstacles to cleaning up real pollution is an ignorant religious fixation on fake pollution. What we need is real science, with real observations. Join us in fighting pollution, start using logic, reason, and empirical evidence. Help the world instead of hurting it…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    replicant

    I don’t know what fake pollution is.

    agwnonsense wrote –

    “Are these people for real? Well they are welcome to join John Cook and Tim Flummery et.al feeding –it and CO2 to my Rose’s and veggies they grow so much better.Climate Change is Natural and CO2 is life.”

    - more is better. There is nothing natural about anything in our present human world, and that includes CO2 levels. CO2 levels at 400 ppm is anything but natural. Especially when there does not exist any sign on the horizon that some attempt might arrive to halt further increases since there is no indication that I can see that there will be any attempts to curtail our present activity. It is impossible to ignore CO2 and curtail only ‘real pollution’. Curtail real pollution then. Stop the oil sands project in Alberta. That will definitely have an effect on CO2 emissions. If man is to survive every single person must become tree hugger. There are absolutely no alternatives. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

    “The biggest obstacles to cleaning up real pollution is an ignorant religious fixation on fake pollution.” I don’t believe this is correct. I believe the biggest obstacle is a religious fixation that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can drive our cars because CO2 doesn’t matter. I believe that statement reflects a concern about something that doesn’t matter.

    Thank you for letting me speak my piece. That was very generous of you.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Fake pollution obviously is the kind that does not harm us or the environment. The observational evidence suggests CO2 will warm the planet by about 1/6th of what the IPCC suggests. That will likely be beneficial. It already feeds about 5% of the world, and is greening the deserts.

      I believe the biggest obstacle is a religious fixation that we can have our cake and eat it too.

      OK. So you should protest on their sites then. Who believes that?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] is mostly responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. This means temperature (heat) increases BEFORE CO2 not the other way around as we are told every day. If that is the case, then trying to lower our [...]


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>