CO2 Lags Not Leads

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Objection:

The CO2 concentration lags behind temperature by centuries in the glacial-interglacial cycles, so clearly CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise, temperatures cause CO2 to rise.

Answer:

A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then hundreds of years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!) so for the majority of that time (90% and more) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures while also revealing it can be an effect of them.

The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is actually a very small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo. This change, reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface, led to increasing the warmth more in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.

You can also go here for a discussion by climate scientists of exactly this question but with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature.

So, it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

One warning that this gives us for the future is that we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process that took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils and methane from melting permafrost.


This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


“CO2 Lags Not Leads” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.

144 thoughts on “CO2 Lags Not Leads

  1. Adam,

    I know your not arguing against Coby’s position, your arguing for it. Coby’s position is that because there is correlation between temperature and CO2, there must be causality, even with the CO2 lagging temperature. This is a very basic logical flaw. Further, Coby says that CO2 takes over as climate driver.

    My position is that CO2 is a GHG. That each doubling in lab experiments shows we should expect an ~1.2C increase. So far, the real world shows that the current increase in CO2 could have produced ~0.7C, I say could of because not all the climate drivers are understood. This leads to two possible cases:

    The first case is that all current warming is due to CO2. If we stipulate that all the warming is due to CO2, then the real world shows that there are no positive feedbacks. That the only increase that can be shown is that due to the CO2 and there are no feed backs.

    The second case, and the more likely one, is that since we do not know all the climate forcings, then the actual temperature impact of CO2 is less than what the lab experiments would suggest.

    In either case, there is no real world evidence of CO2 having a positive feedback that causes more warming than can be attributed to the CO2 directly. We know the models are not based on scientific principles, since it is hard to program scientific principles when at this point we do not know what they are. Hunt et al (2005) found that the models could not reproduce either the MWP or the LIA as part of the normal climate. The models are parametrized best fit with the parameters being guesses to make the trend match the calibration period.

    Further, the models call for polar amplification, which there is none, and a upper tropospheric hot spot at the equator, which there is none.

    Basically, I believe that CO2 should cause some warming but there is no evidence that it will cause the excessive warming predicted by the models.

    Like

  2. Once again Vernon shows that he hasn’t a clue about simple physical chemistry (Clausius–Clapeyron relationship) and climate science.

    I can’t believe that anyone can be so arrogant as to claim over and over again “facts” that he has been told repeatedly are wrong. He knows nothing about the science but “knows” that all the climate scientists are wrong. Such stupidity and arrogance.

    Like

  3. To Ian, Adam Et al,

    Before we get carried away with the name calling.

    lets take a closer look at your theory shall we.

    First of all you claim the MC causes an ice age, ok lets accept this fact for now, although from what i have read this is not a universally accepted theory.

    So then over a period of time something happens and the Earths temps begin to rise and 800 years later the CO2 levels begin to rise.

    At this point the CO2 takes over control of the climate and becomes the major climate driver. Thus proving that CO2 is the major climate driver today. Is that about right?

    Ok so now lets pick holes in your theory.

    First question, what caused the temp rise from time 0 to 800 years?

    If CO2 took control of the climate back then with no negative feedbacks what stopped the CO2 and therefore temps from rising uninhibited to very high levels?

    Can you answer these questions? because if you cant then your CO2/ice age theory is invalid.

    Here is a link that shows the oceans warmed from the ground up, in other words the deep ocean warmed first and this heat the rose up to the surface.

    w.w.w.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895

    Now if your theory is true then the surface would warm first or from the top down correct?

    So here is another theory, the oceans warmed releasing water vapour (oops theres that word again)WV of course being the most powerful GHG by a long way then began to drive up the temps and after 800 years the CO2 levels began to rise as well.

    Now this is the point were you lot believe CO2 takes over, but please explain how CO2 can overpower the most powerful GHG.

    Here is a good description of the temp v CO2 over the previous ice ages.

    The author raises some good points about the role of CO2 and clearly shows CO2 lags Temp, it is clear to see that as the temps rise the CO2 follows and at no point does CO2 take the lead. It also clearly shows that once the Earth begins the decent into an ice age that CO2 levels get left behind and drop at an even slower rate.

    An interesting point to note is that the same levels of CO2 during the temp rise and the temp fall produce a different temp. Which of course suggests that CO2 play only a minor role in controlling the Earths temp.

    httpwattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    Like

  4. crakar,

    The first link

    http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/iceage.html

    discusses the early hypotheses on ice ages from 1875 to 1972, before deep ice cores were drilled and well before more precise dating techniques were extant. I’m not sure what relevance, apart from an academic historical point of view, this has on the current state of the science post-Vostok in the 80s. Go a little further back in time and we might argue that the flat-earth theory has legs. 🙂

    The second link

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

    is largely about the phasing of ice ages and makes small mention of greenhouse amplification. You said:

    Here is a study that puts the “CO2 made it warmer” theory to bed.

    I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion after reading the article.

    “I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott [lead author on the paper] cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

    which we already agree on. The point has been made repeatedly by others upthread and again a few posts above. Stott apears to be aware of the potential to misunderstand the impact of his study.

    The author also says of Stott’s study:

    In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

    which is in agreement with the thrust of the top post and many that have followed. There is no way that a careful reading of that article could result in the proposition that it ‘puts “CO2 made it warmer” theory to bed.’ And surely you’re not suggesting that a single study wraps up the science on anything?

    I’ve done some reading following Vernon’s query on correlated temperature changes at both hemispheres and found elsewhere the contention (Stott’s) that the Southern Hemispheric insolation changes may lead the Northern. As a result, I attach less confidence to the reply I made to Vernon.

    The third link

    http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/IceAgeTheories.html

    is to Richard A Muller’s book on climate. Most of his work is in spectral analysis of cosmic rays and events, but he has written some papers on ice ages. His contribution to the theory of ice ages is focussed on the triggers for glaciation changes. He has corroborated current conclusions on the dominance of obliquity and precession over eccentricity as the pacemaker of ice ages, acknowledges greenhouse gas amplification, and has attempted to link cosmic ray fluctuations with the onset and terminations of ice ages. The latter effort has met with little success and is a real outlier (his work on this is rarely cited). In any case, none of that adds anything new to this discussion of the role of of GHGs in glacial changes. We’re all agreed that GHGs lag glacial terminations. What seems to be in contention is whether, or how much, GHG accumulation contributes to the overall warming until deglaciation. As there doesn’t seem to be any substantiation to rebut the mainstream position – that GHGs contribute to a significant amount of the warming (about 50%), I’m no longer sure what is being argued.

    You asked:

    Are you saying that solar insolation increased therefore CO2 increased then solar insolation decreased to produce a negative feedback?

    More or less, but I wouldn’t put it quite like that. I’d go with the mainstream language – orbital variations are the pacemaker of the ice ages. The initial forcing reverses as the planet wobbles to a new inclination and the system responds to achieve equilibrium. In-system environmental changes are responsible for the lion’s share of the global temperature changes, with GHGs seemingly the dominant factor. Water vapour would certainly play a significant role as a feedback mechanism.

    I should point out that I’m no scientist, only an interested reader, and the best I can do is understand the weight of current understanding and reflect it as accurately as possible. I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything, just trying to frame the state of the science, which is difficult enough, let alone trying to argue it is wrong. Having said that, Coby has posted my longer post upthread, for anyone who cares to read it.

    Like

  5. Vernon wrote:

    there is a concept called causality. Basically, this means that while there is a correlation between temperature and CO2, CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature since it happens after the temperature rises.

    Let me deal with the causality concept with the guitar/amplifier analogy.

    Which one ’causes’ the sudden howl from feedback?

    Take away the guitar, no feedback. Take away the amplifier, No feedback. What causes the rise in audial volume? Both, acting on each other, whether the amplifier is turned up, or the guitar is brought nearer the amp. A change in the status of either may cause a feedback.

    To the point, in past glacial terminations temperature rises cause GHG accumulation. GHG accumulation causes FURTHER temperature rises. This is a feedback system, which is triggered by an initial heating. The process reverses when the initial trigger (orbital variation) reverses. There are many feedbacks at play that influence timing and amplitude.

    One fallacy here is to assume a single cause for everything. That’s not how the real world works. We may point to a high-stress event that caused a woman to have a heart attack, but there’s good reason to suppose her smoking and obesity contributed to her death, when healthier people by her survived the event.

    To the best of our knowledge, GHG accumulation did not lead glacial terminations, but they contributed, significantly to the overall warming for the duration. I don’t see why that sequence of causality is hard to understand, whether or not one accepts it.

    And to repeat, the phasing of ice ages has no impact on the theory of AGW, which is a property of physics. Ice age responses are used in the science literature to calibrate climate sensitivity, not to corroborate industrial age greenhouse theory. It is largely because lay critics of mainstream AGW theory attempt to rebut it by referencing ice age dynamics that this debate occurs at all (in the semi-popular blog literature).

    Like

  6. Crakar

    At this point the CO2 takes over control of the climate and becomes the major climate driver. Thus proving that CO2 is the major climate driver today. Is that about right?

    No. It supports the conclusion that increasing temperatures cause increasing CO2 concentrations, which cause increase temperatures (positive feedback, as barry explains).

    Like

  7. barry,

    Your example of positive feed back, while in agreement with the models, is not in agreement with facts. If warming from CO2 has a positive feedback as you suggest and describe than the climate system would unstable and always move to an extreme state. That is what the feed back loop in your example does. That is what all positive feed back systems do. The fact that the climate is stable is evidence that the overall feed back for any climate forcing is negative.

    You are trying to change Coby’s position which is what is being discussed. Coby holds that once warming starts and CO2 starts to increase, CO2 becomes the most significant climate forcing. If you read the discussion you would see that I am not claiming that CO2 does not cause any warming, only that it is not the most powerful climate driver at work.

    There is no evidence that CO2 doubling will cause anymore warming than the 1.2C lab experiments show. There is no evidence in the present that increased CO2 will result in more warming than the 1.2C for doubling.

    That models show more warming is not science or fact. I will repeat, we know the models are not based on scientific principles, since it is hard to program scientific principles when at this point we do not know what they are. The models are parameterized to best fit with recent climate. The parameters are nothing more than best guesses to make the model match the calibration period. Hunt et al (2005) found that the models could not reproduce either the MWP or the LIA as part of the normal climate.

    You say that AGW is not disputed by the facts but that is not quite true. The facts are that one of the principle proofs of AGW CO2 warming was that the ice record showed that CO2 and warming were synchronized. Unhappily for the AGW camp, improved techniques soon showed that CO2 lagged warming, but that was ok because the new theory was that once the weak MC started the warming, CO2 took over. That is the position that Coby also supports. The problem is that CO2 peaks after the warming peaks. If CO2 were really adding to the warming then the temperature should peak after the CO2 does, but it does not.

    Just to add to the fun, the proof of current warming being exceptional and due to CO2 is also falling apart. See:

    Christiansen et al (2009)
    http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/staff/boc/reconstr_reprint.pdf

    The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.

    von Storch (2004)The centennial variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the regression-based methods applied here [Mann et al], suggesting that past variations may have been at least a factor of two larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions. Frank et al (2005) The ring-width-based reconstruction substantially underestimates temperatures during the most of the overlap period with early instrumental data, with substantially lower values during the late 1700s and maximal divergence during the temperature minima around 1815.

    D’Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.

    Datsenko et al (2008) It is found that the Mann et al. reconstruction drastically underestimates low-frequency temperature variations, whereas the Moberg et al. reconstruction reproduces them much better, although with a certain underestimation rather than overestimation, as Mann et al. have recently argued.

    Von Storch et al (2009)
    The methods are Composite plus Scaling, the inverse regression method of Mann et al. (Nature 392:779–787, 1998) and a direct principal-components regression method. … All three methods underestimate the simulated variations of the Northern Hemisphere temperature, but the Composite plus Scaling method clearly displays a better performance and is robust against the different noise models and network size.

    Riedwyl et al (2008)
    This paper presents a comparison of principal component (PC) regression and regularized expectation maximization (RegEM) to reconstruct European summer and winter surface air temperature over the past millennium. … For the specific predictor network given in this paper, both techniques underestimate the target temperature variations to an increasing extent as more noise is added to the signal, albeit RegEM less than with PC regression.

    So, there is no proof that CO2 warming has any positive feed backs. The models are not based on scientific principles but rather are parameterized and fitted to the calibration period. There is no proof that current warming is exceptional. There has been no warming this decade. The whole AGW theory is falling apart, could be why they are not pushing to change the name to climate change.

    Like

  8. That’s too much digression for me, Vernon. It seems you’re more interested in arguing against the theory of AGW than acquainting yourself with the weight of scientifc opinion on the contribution of various factors on glacial transitions. One can find outlying papers to ‘disprove’ any theory, but unless that is balanced with a grounding in the mainstream view, the practise is opportunistic rather than objectively inquisitive, isn’t it?

    Your points are interesting of themselves, but none of them approach a falsification of the generally accepted principles of ice age dynamics pertinent to the thrust of the argument heading this thread – that orbital forcings, while the trigger of glacial changes (positive and negative), are too weak to account for the amplitude of global temperature, and that GHGs account for the lion’s share of the warming. I’ve cited a raft of papers that are indicative of the weight of opinion. Here’s another looking at the contribution of orbital variation to global warming at glacial terminations – around 10% (maximum of 20%, minimum of < 1%).

    http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/milankovitchqsr2004.pdf

    If you wish to posit that GHGs cannot have acounted for much of the warming during interglacials, then perhaps you have some credible (recent) papers that explore that, specific, idea.

    You write:

    You say that AGW is not disputed by the facts but that is not quite true. The facts are that one of the principle proofs of AGW CO2 warming was that the ice record showed that CO2 and warming were synchronized.

    That is simply not true. As I’ve said numerous times above, ice age dynamics studies were never cited as proof of industrial age global warming, although some studies make brief mention of the possible consequences. The reason it seems so is that the recent semi-popular debate has included the phase-lag discussion, but this corner of the conversation was initiated by critics, not proponents.

    Unhappily for the AGW camp, improved techniques soon showed that CO2 lagged warming, but that was ok because the new theory was that once the weak MC started the warming, CO2 took over.

    As the lag was first hypothesised before the first IPCC report, and formally submitted at least as far back as 1990 (the year of the first IPCC report), your history seems a little odd, and, I would guess, quite fictional. Once again, the theory never depended on ice age dynamics. Rather, the theory was built on spectral analysis, revivified in the 50s when the US air force discovered atmospheric layering, and from observations of atmospheric CO2 increase – well before GHG dynamics in ice ages got much traction in the literature. You have this wrong.

    It might interest you that some of the earliest papers on lag was co-authored by James Hansen, in 1990.

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf

    A post of mine with some of those studies reflecting the progress of understanding was admitted by Coby and appeared upthread. Peruse it for corroboration if you wish. Some of your points just above are taken up there.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php#comment-1656880

    As to your other points, I’m not really interested in persuading anyone that AGW theory is robust and am content for you to maintain your opinion on that. Perhaps we will discuss other issues in the appropriate venues.

    Like

  9. Vernon –

    If warming from CO2 has a positive feedback as you suggest and describe than the climate system would unstable and always move to an extreme state. That is what the feed back loop in your example does. That is what all positive feed back systems do.

    Once again, you fail to understand what a feedback is. A positive feedback is not inherently unstable, as long as there are multiple inputs (as there are in the real world). In mathematical models, sure, you can have a system that explodes to infinity, but in the real-world, this doesn’t happen.

    Take the case of the inverted pendulum: Sure, a perturbation will cause it to fall, but it’s fall will be limited. It won’t explode, even though a model can be constructed to show this explosion. (And before you jump in with any predictable comments about how this shows climate models are invalid, you can also construct a model that doesn’t show this)

    The fact that the climate is stable is evidence that the overall feed back for any climate forcing is negative.

    All real systems are stable (so to speak). That doesn’t mean they cannot have components that act as a positive feedback. I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

    barry’s example is actually a perfect illustration of this. His amp/guitar system will emit the positive feedback screech, but it won’t explode to infinity because the speaker will break well before this happens. This is an inherent negative feedback to the system. This also, however, does not mean that there are no positive feedbacks present in the system.

    So, there is no proof that CO2 warming has any positive feed backs.

    You have already acknowledged that CO2 is a positive feedback!!!!! Comment 101: Basically, I believe that CO2 should cause some warming…

    If CO2 increases because of a temperature increase, and that CO2 “should cause some warming” that is by definition a positive feedback. You can certainly argue about the extent of the warming that will happen, but to deny that there’s a positive feedback is lunacy.

    Like

  10. Adam,

    In this your flatly wrong

    “barry’s example is actually a perfect illustration of this. His amp/guitar system will emit the positive feedback screech, but it won’t explode to infinity because the speaker will break well before this happens.”

    I never said it would explode to infinity, I said that a system with over all positive feedback will always move to an extreme state. That is what that example shows. No one said explode to infinity, that is your phase not mine.

    You are playing word games and being dense, I suspect, on purpose. If doubling CO2 causes more than 1.2C of temperature increase then the climate feedback is positive, if doubling CO2 causes less than 1.2C of temperature increases than the climate feedback is negative. Please point to some empirical study that shows with real world measurements that increased CO2 has lead to more warming than can be attributed to the CO2 alone. The answer is there is not one. There is theory, there is speculation, but there are no actual facts and measurements.

    Like

  11. Vernon said: “You are playing word games and being dense, I suspect, on purpose”. Vernon you are the one playing games and being arrogant and stupid. Anyone who wants to see how Vernon plays his game has only to visit the thread over at Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/open_thread_25.php) where he repeats his nonsense ad nauseum for approximately 200 posts. It is time that he is stopped since her will go on for ever.

    He is clearly suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis.

    I have never seen such a listing of completely wrong statements as you provide in your nonsensical postings. You know nothing about science but have the arrogance to claim that all climate scientists are either wrong or lying.

    Get treatment.

    Like

  12. Ian –

    Wow, thanks for that link. You’d think someone would get tired of being corrected by several people on the same topic at the same time in multiple places, but I guess Vernon just enjoys the argument, and isn’t actually interested in where his analysis has gone wrong.

    Hope you had a good time, Vernon, I’m done playing your game. I’ve wasted too much time on you already.

    Like

  13. Coby,

    I know your policy on your blog is not to silence competing views. Normally, I would not ask that anyone not be allowed to present deferring views of the science and the studies that support their claim. I do however want to post a complaint about Ian Forrester. So far he has not discussed the science or presented studies to support any position. All I see is him making demeaning personal attacks on anyone he does not agree with. This is a science blog, so could you enforce a limit on these attacks and move the focus back to the science. I do not mind if people get caught up in the moment and the conversation gets a little emotional, after all most everyone posting here is passionate about the science.

    I know we rarely agree on scientific issues but I have always found you to be a civil opponent. Can we get the pointless personnel attacks eliminated?

    Like

  14. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  15. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  16. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  17. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  18. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  19. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  20. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  21. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  22. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  23. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  24. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  25. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  26. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  27. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  28. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  29. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  30. It was good to revisit some studies and look at new ones during this conversation. I thought some of Vernon’s points were valid, and his rejoinders led me to learn that there is still a sizable debate in the literature over which hemisphere leads. From the Vostok cores it was thought that southern insolation triggered global changes, then northern lead was popular, and now it has drifted to a positing that south or both lead. In the latter case, a two-step process that starts in one hemisphere with a slight rise in temperatures, followed by an amplification when orbital variation moves to the other hemisphere – the 100 k/yr signal being triggered by both hemispheres one after the other (with ~ 20 k/yr procession).

    Those details have no impact on the basic thrust of the top post, which is to do with post orbital amplification. All the post-1990 papers I’ve read examining relative contributons to warming agree that insolation changes are too weak to cause much of it (from < 1% to 20%, the mean being 10 – 11%). 80 – 99% of the warming in an interglacial comes from forces other than insolation changes. Consistent with the papers I cited above, there is general agreement that GHGs account for about 50% of the total warming, CO2 comprising a third. GHG warming hastens ice-sheet retreat, and therefore take a share of the ice response in the overall warming.

    This general agreement is unaffected by lag profiles, even towards deglaciation, and the saw-tooth shape of ice age cycles is consistent with the response time of carbon outgassing (fast/ocean) and sinking (slow/geological absorption). Even disregarding work in this milenium positing no lag during the onset of glaciation, the complex feedbacks associated with glacial changes (fresh water pulsing, ocean overturn, plant cover dynamics, ice sheet changes, silicate coverage etc) may account for a CO2 drawdown lag. The coarse, low-resolution graphs do not capture short-term variations (< 1000 years). There is a great deal of +/- activity at the peaks and troughs not reflected in this conversation – and only beginning to be understood in the literature – that may explain the phase lag into glaciation. If it did, indeed occur.

    It may interest some to know a climate system lag was posited as early as 1976, well predating the IPCC. Hansen was co-author author of a 1990 study (I cited it upthread) that mentioned the possibility of climate system phase-lag (ice sheets and GHGs). Ice age studies were definitely not a basis for AGW theory – that was posited 70 years before GHG response in ice ages was examined much. Vernon, your narrative on re-inventing AGW theory to fit burgeoning knowledge on ice-ages doesn't match the chronology of scientific understanding, nor does it reflect the physical core of the main theory. Ice-age studies have by and large been connected to AGW via verifying climate sensitivity, which has never depended on the timing of forcings.

    I am not interested in persuading people one way or the other on AGW. I am only interested in establishing the progress of the science and the weight of current opinon. This seems like the objective way to aproach specific issues twoards forming an opinion on the general theme, but I'm not championing a cause..

    Vernon and crakar: there are always outlying papers and views. If you emphasise those without understanding and crediting the mainstrewam view, then I'm not sure that your purpose is an objective analysis. Vernon, I'm not trying to argue the merits of AGW, and am not inclined to follow the digressions you offered. Perhaps we'll pick them up in more appropriate places.

    Ian and Adam: you may also be gripping your position to tightly. At one time I used care about persuading people to my view, but I found that this earned me more grief than was worth it, and my own objectivity was occluded by furstration.

    It's probably presumptuous of me to offer advice (perhaps even patronising, although I don't see myself as some debate guru), but I've found a detached approach, rooted in a real curiosity in the science, has yielded a better discourse from me, elicited similar from people who disagree with me, and that the discourse between us progresses faster from point to point and more effectively as a result. Or, IOW, butting heads gets you a sore head. 🙂

    Ultimately, what happens in the bottom of threads at blogsites isn't going to much effect the world of policy. It's no loss of pride simply to walk away, either.

    And with that, I don't think there's much more to be gained slugging it out here. On certain aspects, the debate goes on in the literature, and that, to me at least, is fascinating.

    Peace.

    Like

  31. Vernon, there are not “two sides to science”. There is what is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature and your rubbish. As I have pointed out on two other blogs your interpretation skills are zero. Whether this is deliberate or just due to your ignorance I don’t know but your repeated scoffing of real science is pathetic.

    Coby is free to do as he wishes with my comments about your lack of ethics, arrogance and pigheadedness. I just want to point out to others that you repeat the same nonsense over and over again on several blogs (those that you have not been banned from).

    Like

  32. To Adam,

    Thanks for the clarification, although you do realise that an increase in temp will also cause an increase in water vapour which is a much more powerful GHG. Most people here seem to not mention WV but we should keep in mind that WV plays a crucial role in the AGW theory and without WV the AGW theory would not exist.

    The graph i showed clearly shows that at no time does CO2 control the temps so i am still with Vernon on this one and fail to see how without any evidence anyone can come to the conclusion that after an 800 year lag CO2 drives the climate, which is essentially what you are saying. Maybe you are right and we should agree to disagree as always.

    By the way Barry’s analogy of feed back is in fact very poor (no offense Barry) The microphone rxs an audio signal which sends it to the amplifier which amplifies the audio signal and is reproduced via a speaker this audio signal is then rx’ed by the microphone at a higher amplitude (measured in decibels) it is then sent to the amp which amplifies it etc, etc.

    To fix the problem you simply move the microphone away from the speaker, the climate works obviously in a much more complex and different way. But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    On the subject of feed backs, Vernon asked what stops it from moving to an extreme state. I do not believe his question was answered fully or clearly. Adam i think you said we have multiple inputs that stop this? If so then would that not suggest that CO2 is not the most powerful driver as you suggest. It would suggest to me that we have multiple inputs that push the climate in many different directions, some up and some down.

    Sometimes we have more pushing up so temp goes up, sometimes we have more pushing down so temp goes down. And all the while CO2 lags the temp by about 800 years.

    Like

  33. barry –

    No offense taken, and your statement certainly wasn’t patronizing. It is something to keep in mind, and arguing with people like Vernon and Crakar isn’t likely to gain you anything (and as you mention, is more likely to result in frustration and loss of objectivity). That being said, I don’t think anything I wrote was too far off base, though I’ll leave that for others to judge.

    Like

  34. crakar,

    But to explain a simple positive feed back it works ok.

    That is precisely what I was doing. It seemed upthread that the concept of feedback was misunderstood. The analogy works WRT to the subject in that whether turning up the amp, or bringing the mic (guitar in my example) closer to the speaker, both have the same effect of producing the feedback if the initial conditions are right (proximity close enough that either change of state produces the effect = sensitivty of the climate system to various forcings). It’s not just one or the other, and all examples are a property of physics.

    And with respect to reversing the feedback effect, either turning the amp down or moving the the guitar further away from the speaker will do the same job.

    Not a perfect analogy, of course (none are) but sufficient to describe feedback. And yes, there are multiple feedbacks in ice age dynamics, many not very well understood at present. But the large scale feedbacks have clearer signatures and there is general agreement on those in the literature in line with the argument in Coby’s post.

    To add to my growing collection of scientific studies on ice age climate dynamics, are there any post-80s peer-reviewed studies on ice ages positing a small contribution of greenhouse gases to interglacial warming? Please post them here. I’ve been unable to locate any.

    Please, no blog posts from unqualified people, and no orthogonal work.

    Like

  35. Ian,

    your understanding of science appears to be flawed to me. Science is not a monolith, but rather it is made up of many competing views and ideas. It is the search for the truth, often by the very competition you decry that eventually leads to the truth. Every thing I have quoted was peer reviewed and published science, just because you do not like it does not devalue the work. You made the claim that your a scientist, and I do not doubt you. While I am only an engineer, I do not understand why you are adverse to a frank discussion of the science or even why you do not go with first sources, but chose to quote advocacy sites.

    I do not consider myself to lack ethics, be arrogance but I do concede that I am can be stubborn. You have no basis for making the first two claims other than seems to be your standard mantra when you are confronted with facts and studies. As to the stubbornness, that seems to be a characteristic of almost all the posters on all the sites.

    As to your complaint that I discuss the same issues on other sites – I have to ask, why is that a problem? So far I have not found anyone on any site that can address my principle argument, namely that the current GCM’s are either wrong, or we are not having global warming. Since, it is evident that we did do a 20 year warming period, the models appear to be wrong.

    Yes, I got banned on one blog for saying that the Wegman report showed that Mann et al’s use of statistics was flawed. When quoting the premier statistician in America, on a panel of premier statisticians, when they find that the statistical methodology was flawed causes you to be banned, well, that says more about the site than about me.

    Like

  36. Vernon, science is about honesty. That means you don’t misquote, you don’t cherry pick and you don’t quote a paper which says the opposite of what you claim. You are guilty of all of these. These are considered major acts of malfeasance in science. I don’t know what your background is but it is obviously not in science. Science is one of the most honest and honorable disciplines around (at least until the anti-science people got started).

    If you want to be considered worthy of having discussions with you will have to leave your baggage at home and start afresh.

    If you continue to repeat your anti-science tactics I will expose you on it every chance I get.

    To others who may not agree with my approach, sorry, but that is the way I am. I have spent over 40 years in science and I will not have it besmirched by the likes of Vernon et al.

    Like

  37. barry,

    I have to disagree with you on our general knowledge of the climate drivers and feedbacks. The IPCC 4th AR says that the level of scientific understanding is medium for ozone, medium to low for surface albedo and direct aerosols, and low for Stratospheric warer vapor, total aerosol, clouds, linear contrails, and solar irradiance. What is really surprising is that the IPCC makes no claim of any scientific understanding for water vapor.

    Oh, and please do not do what Lorius et al (1990) did. Start off talking about GHG and then switch the discussion to CO2.
    Stott et al (2007)http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5849/435
    Deep-sea temperatures warmed by 2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by 1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.

    Soon (2007)
    http://bellwether.metapress.com/content/6024h28209l41257/
    A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years, even under the “fast-response” framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed. Atmospheric CO2 variations generally follow changes in temperature and other climatic variables rather than preceding them.

    Monnin et al (2004)
    http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Mon2003a.pdf
    A new chronology for the Taylor Dome ice core established through CO2 synchronization reveals that the accumulation has changed substantially during the Holocene, with a long-term increase that shows little relation with the Temperature history. Many timescales using ice flow models, especially those for Antarctic cores, are based partly on the assumption that the accumulation rate varies as the saturation vapor pressure over ice and is therefore a function of local temperature. This assumption is clearly not valid at Taylor Dome, and is likely to be substantially incorrect at other sites as well, notably in locations such as Law Dome and Siple Dome, which are at relatively low elevation and near coastal regions. At more-inland sites such as Dome C, independent validation of the ice core timescales suggests that the assumption is reasonable; however, it is unlikely to be strictly valid and caution is urged in applying it.

    Ahn et al (20050
    http://gradworks.umi.com/31/85/3185926.html
    On the basis of a combined study of noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity, and Ca2+ ion content, for the first time it was confirmed that substantial CO 2 diffusion through the ice occurs on timescales of thousands of years. The product of the diffusion constant and the solubility was obtained as 4.3 (±2.1) × 10−21 m2s −1 molCO2 m−3ice (PaCO 2)−1 at −23°C. This work shows that the smoothing of the CO2 record in the core by diffusion is one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing induced by the gas age distribution at the depth of 287 m (gas age = 2.74 kyrBP, thousand years before 1950) in the Siple Dome ice. Further results of this research found that Siple Dome CO2 concentrations during the last deglaciation and in the Holocene are at certain times greater than those in other Antarctic ice cores by up to 20 ppm (μmol CO2/mol air).

    Basically, what I am presenting is that what we think we know is constatly changing.

    Like

  38. Ian,

    I have never considered you worthy of having a discussion with. You never present anything. You only point to advocacy sites.

    Just to make sure I have this right. Referencing a study as a source for a specific fact is what you consider a major act of malfeasance in science. Now I know you are not in science and do not have a clue. If I reference a specific paper as the source for a specific fact, that is not malfeasance or misquoting despite what you wish to believe.

    So, please, point to where I have misquoted a study.

    Like

  39. Vernon, I have wasted enough of my time on you here. However, I will bring your dishonest ways to any other site that you try to post your scientific nonsense on.

    I have been a scientist for over 40 years so I know what I am talking about when I call you you distributing your nonsense.

    You would get thrown out of any decent science school if you tried your tactics there. Scientists are not entitled to their “own opinions”. Scientific consensus is built up on a frame work of agreed on laws, definitions and facts. Do you have a different opinion on what defines a metre, what defines a second, what makes up water? Of course not. The science of AGW is similarly built up on layers of agreed and established principles.

    There is hardly one paper in the scientific peer reviewed literature which has any data which disproves these established principles.

    You are nothing but a denier troll.

    Like

  40. Ian,

    You are not a scientist, lie about it as you want. I will be happy when you quit following me a round and being a liar. You make slurs and defamatory posts but never back up your crap. You are the worse kind of troll.

    Fool, the IPCC quite plainly states that we have low scientific understanding of Stratospheric water vapor, tropospheric water vapor, solar irradiance, and linear contrails. We have medium to low understanding of aerosols, and surface albedo. We only have medium understanding of Ozone. We do not even have high understanding of all the GHGs. Water vapor is the strongest and most prevalent GHG and we do not fully understand water vapor or clouds.

    It has just in the last few years been proven that UHI is a significant contributer to regional and potentially global instrumented temperature trends.

    Recent studies have shown that tree rings are not good temperature proxies and many issues that have yet to be addressed have been identified.

    The statistical methods used in the temperature reconstructions have been found to be flawed and to not recreate the low frequency variability.

    Finally the GCM’s predict that for global warming, there will be polar amplification, but there is not.

    This is all out of the IPCC or other peer reviewed published reports. You call me a liar when I present peer reviewed studies that back up my position.

    You are a clueless troll.

    Like

  41. Vernon is showing his true colours. He doesn’t have a clue about me but is willing to lie that he knows I am not a scientist. Vernon, you are as wrong about that as everything else you write about. It must make you feel great living in a make believe world and making fun of everyone who tries to bring you into reality.

    By the way, you keep claiming that I never offer science cites. You refuse to discuss the cites I gave showing you that you are completely wrong in your assertion that there is no Polar amplification. You just ignore any science which refutes your denier viewpoints. Typical of all AGW deniers.

    You are scraping the bottom of the barrel with your latest list of “scientific” findings, they have all been debunked many times.

    You are pathetic.

    Like

  42. i have read in quite a few places about the microphone near the speaker analogy, and it is just completely wrong, but it does highlight some conceptual problems.

    the microphone is connected to an amplifier with an external power source, if you remove that power source, then the output will never be greater than the input ie all that feedback does is either dampen the waveform (negative) or bring it closer to a unity state of 0db (positive). it can never be greater than the input. there is no amplification of any form of energy ever, only energy conversion. put quite simple, energy cannot be created or even destroyed for that matter.

    now the theory is that co2 is converting more electrical energy into heat energy by a positive change in concentration. and this part is correct. but it is important to remember that the energy is still within the system.

    the next step is to work out what effect the extra co2/ heat energy has on the overall temperature.

    if we look at history where co2 and temps have both been higher and the system was fairly close (suns output), we see a driver other than co2 that starts heating, we also see a drop in temperature over a given length of time. now if we refer back to the system and feedback, we can see that for co2 to be able to alter the temperature more than the original signal there needs to be another energy source introduced that was not there before. we know that there is no new energy source, only what co2 can do itself, so from this the cooling proves that co2 does not drive temperatures even at higher concentrations.

    where is the flaw in the logic?

    Like

  43. Barry post 134,

    Sorry misunderstood your post a little, i think we both agree on the same thing re feed back analogy.

    In regards to ice ages and their cause, i had a really good study by NASA which claimed the MC was not a sufficient forcing to cause an ice age, think it was post 1980 but have lost it somewhere. I did send it to Coby for his thoughts, maybe he has still got it?

    I have this link which gives us a quick look at the various theories and thier related studies

    w.w.w.sentex.net/~tcc/iceage.html

    None of these mention GHG’s not that that means anything some are pre 1980.

    This one suggests the Earth moves into and out off debris in space which i suppose acts to dim the suns rays causing cooling etc.

    w.w.w.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ice-age-sediments.html

    This one shows the oceans warmed from the bottom up first suggesting that GHG’s did not drive the Earth out of the ice age

    w.w.w.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895

    The only study i can find that references the role of GHG’s is this one, they change the dates of the last ice age to when the CO2 levels were very low as opposed to being high (in the 1000’s ppm range)

    researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

    So Barry, we have a lot of competing theories to choose from which is why i say “something” happened to cause an ice age and “something” happened to end it. I am sure that GHG’s play a role but the theory being portrayed here by some that CO2 played no role for 800 years and then “took over” is at best absurd and is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    If you have a study which supports the CO2 does nothing for 800 years then takes over i would be very interested in having a look at it.

    Cheers

    Crakar

    Like

Comments are closed.