Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

I have a plot somewhere that I made of temperature proxy with (approximate) time error bars. Can't seem to find it now though.

The rate of change seems unusual based on the data we do have - something like 10k years at annual level resolutions out to ~800k where we have decade level, decreasing as we go further back.

I call BS on that one - what proxies do we have that are even close to annual resolution at 10,000 years ago? Or are you basing it on a single tree again?

[Globs]

Perhaps Hairy is referring to the Vostok Ice core sample graphs that clearly show CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature changes as expected?

[Lotus 50]

Globs said:

Perhaps Hairy is referring to the Vostok Ice core sample graphs that clearly show CO2 is a lagging indicator that follows temperature changes as expected?

It isn't just a lagging indicator, increases in CO2 force temp increases as well as following temp change.

[robinessex]

Above two posting, one says CO2 does, the other says it doesn't. So it's bloody lottery then, isn't it? CC and AGW belief cancelled then.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Above two posting, one says CO2 does, the other says it doesn't. So it's bloody lottery then, isn't it? CC and AGW belief cancelled then.

Er no - read what I said properly. Temp increases can increase CO2 levels (e.g. temp increases arising from other forcing factors (solar, earth's orbit etc) causing reduced oceanic uptake of CO2 and increased biodegradation of soil mass releasing additional CO2) and CO2 in itself can force temp increases via the greenhouse gas effect. CO2 doesn't always follow temp changes it can lead them.

But if you'd been bothered to read the papers re causality I'd posted a few pages ago rather than huffing and puffing you'd already know that.

[grumbledoak]

I see that at least one "carbon" removal scheme has become reality:
https://news.vice.com/story/this-factory-will-suck...

We're saved!

[jet_noise]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Above two posting, one says CO2 does, the other says it doesn't. So it's bloody lottery then, isn't it? CC and AGW belief cancelled then.

Er no - read what I said properly. Temp increases can increase CO2 levels (e.g. temp increases arising from other forcing factors (solar, earth's orbit etc) causing reduced oceanic uptake of CO2 and increased biodegradation of soil mass releasing additional CO2) and CO2 in itself can force temp increases via the greenhouse gas effect. CO2 doesn't always follow temp changes it can lead them.

But if you'd been bothered to read the papers re causality I'd posted a few pages ago rather than huffing and puffing you'd already know that.

That's a new one for me - CO2 leading temperature, interesting. When did this happen (I mean in the earth's history, not the paper's date!)

regards,
Jet

[robinessex]

grumbledoak said:

I see that at least one "carbon" removal scheme has become reality:
https://news.vice.com/story/this-factory-will-suck...

We're saved!

Yes, lets get millions of them, and er, suck out to much CO2 !!!

[Silver Smudger]

Silver Smudger said:

Knowing that the method of temperature measurement now is very different and more precise than that used to detect the temperature in the distant past, can anyone show that there were no periods in the earlier part of that graph when temperature went up or down very quickly, or cite some research that investigated this?

hairykrishna said:

I have a plot somewhere that I made of temperature proxy with (approximate) time error bars. Can't seem to find it now though.

The rate of change seems unusual based on the data we do have - something like 10k years at annual level resolutions out to ~800k where we have decade level, decreasing as we go further back.

Did you have any luck finding that plot, or anything similar that could answer my Q above?

[budgie smuggler]

SS What are you getting at though? There were rapid changes in the paleozoic era therefore it's fine it happens now?

[hairykrishna]

Silver Smudger said:

Did you have any luck finding that plot, or anything similar that could answer my Q above?

No, haven't found the plot - it's probably in one of the big climate threads somewhere! I'll try and recreate it when I'm not too busy. As I recall most of the significant ice core data are available in a fairly user friendly format (i.e. a big excel sheet).

[Lotus 50]

jet_noise said:

That's a new one for me - CO2 leading temperature, interesting. When did this happen (I mean in the earth's history, not the paper's date!)

regards,
Jet

It's happened at various times, if I recall correctly one of the papers I posted shows it happening in the last ice age for example. Hence the concerns about positive feedback loops - you increase CO2 -> temp goes up -> CO2 goes up further...

[Globs]

Lotus 50 said:

Hence the concerns about positive feedback loops - you increase CO2 -> temp goes up -> CO2 goes up further...

There is no positive feedback, the planet has stayed within about 8C (IIRC) for billions of years.
Indicating the presence of a powerful negative feedback look.

In fact black/grey body radiation has an intrinsic and very powerful negative feedback mechanism: when something (anything, even a bottle of pure CO2) warms up it radiates more heat energy away to a new stable point.

It's ironic that the harder the AGWists bleat about how much warming there has been; the less we need to worry, because it's an equilibrium game: AR4 predicted around 0.48C rise, which we've had according to the AGW people, so by their own definition there will be no more rise.

Only recently on the BBC did the snowflake liberals discover that more CO2 means more plants, which means cooler temperatures - yet another negative feedback mechanism.

That's why Michael Moron Mann's hockey stick was always a joke and has singularly failed to happen.

[grumbledoak]

Globs said:

There is no positive feedback, the planet has stayed within about 8C (IIRC) for billions of years.

If positive feedback of that type was even possible we wouldn't be here. The planet has had 4.5 billion years to runaway.

[Silver Smudger]

budgie smuggler said:

SS What are you getting at though? There were rapid changes in the paleozoic era therefore it's fine it happens now?

I thought it was quite clear that I was looking for evidence that might support the position that the current rate of change was something significant, as you and Gandahar were saying earlier.

At least I think that's what Gandahar was saying...

Gandahar said:

budgie smuggler said:

robinessex said:

...snip...

It's not just the absolute, it's the rate of change.

Before man change was slow or fast naturally. Now it is slow or fast naturally plus an extra edition from man which is very fast, obviously, but we don't know yet the addition quantity wise. But there is some edition.

... or am I missing your point?

[XM5ER]

grumbledoak said:

I see that at least one "carbon" removal scheme has become reality:
https://news.vice.com/story/this-factory-will-suck...

We're saved!

That has to be a spoof surely.

[LongQ]

XM5ER said:

grumbledoak said:

I see that at least one "carbon" removal scheme has become reality:
https://news.vice.com/story/this-factory-will-suck...

We're saved!

That has to be a spoof surely.

Perhaps not.

If one can influence "policy makers" enough to increase the cost of everything far above what is necessary even the most insane seeming "solutions" may become "affordable" whether or not they are likely to be effective.

Humanity's creativity is only matched by its capacity for incredulity.

[plunker]

Globs said:

Only recently on the BBC did the snowflake liberals discover that more CO2 means more plants, which means cooler temperatures - yet another negative feedback mechanism.

That's why Michael Moron Mann's hockey stick was always a joke and has singularly failed to happen.

A bit of an odd comment, the 'blade' on Mann's so-called hockey stick is the instrumental record so has already happened.

[plunker]

grumbledoak said:

Globs said:

There is no positive feedback, the planet has stayed within about 8C (IIRC) for billions of years.

If positive feedback of that type was even possible we wouldn't be here. The planet has had 4.5 billion years to runaway.

Feedbacks can run out of steam - once all the snow/ice is melted no more reduced albedo, CO2 forcing is logarithmic etc.

[Globs]

plunker said:

the 'blade' on Mann's so-called hockey stick is the instrumental record so has already happened.

Did it, oh sorry, I hadn't noticed. Did anyone else notice?
Sounds like this AGW stuff was just a huge distraction for everyone concerned then - doesn't it?