Slashdot Mirror

You say CO2 increases lag warm periods.

Yes -- here's the ice core data showing it.

Well, plants like warm weather and they eat CO2 and sequester it into the dirt. Cool off the weather and you get less plants and they eat less CO2. That aspect of the system was in dynamic equilibrium.

Right. I said that: "obviously the plants making lots and lots [of CO2]" (they get it from the air and make O.)

The concern is that poking that with more CO2 will change the dynamics.

Yes, I completely understand. However, I *also* understand that the previous climate is not evidence that can be used to support prediction of what will happen. This is new theory, without prior evidence in the form of similar events to back it up... so we're in the unenviable place of having ONLY models to look at in order to shore up these ideas, and the problem is that so far -- the models don't work well. It's quite typical for mid-latitude predictions to be "on" but then the poles are way out of whack, or vice-versa, and consequently on average, the whole answer is wrong. And we can't test these models in ANY way by doing anything but letting them run, looking at the output, and then waiting on the climate. To put it in another form, we can only wait and see what the climate does in order to see if a model works, or not. This in turn means that we should reduce CO2 (which I also said: "yes, we should reduce our CO2 emissions") as a preemptive measure simply because we know we're making more than is usually around, and we should be cautious of changes we make to our ecosphere, but there's zero indication about how fast and hard we really ought to go about that. This, combined with the fact that technology is at the very moment in the process of bringing us significant CO2 reductions, and oil too because of supply issues, puts me in a "do we really want to (further) injure our economy for known non-working models?" kind of outlook. I'm open to good science, but I'm not particularly open to speculation driven by broken models. I'm also pretty open to the idea of living in a more tropical world, which is also one of the potential outcomes here. By fighting this CO2 increase, we MIGHT be shooting ourselves right in the foot. We REALLY do not know. More work is called for, and I think that's happening, so I'm pretty happy, really.

Your claim of CO2 lagging warming is nonsense and has been thoroughly debunked.

Nonsense. It's patently evident on ice core graphs. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Really? And what is your scientific research backing up such a ridiculous claim? It seems all the peer-reviewed science says the exact opposite. Let me guess, you're a conspiracy nut, right?

No. I'm just someone who is interested in the science. Look at the ice core data. CO2 increases *clearly* lag temperature increases. So you can call names all you want, but there are the facts, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about them except continue to LIE.

But clearly, no amount of scientific research will convince you otherwise, so we'll just wait and see what happens over the next decade or so.

Yes, clearly. I'm ignoring the science. You bet. Idiot. You're just wasting everyone's time with your name calling and baiting. Piss off.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ The chart on that page shows not two, but three previous high spikes, not counting the high level at the beginning of the chart. We are in an interglacial period, plain and simple. Without industrialization, we could EXPECT marked global warming. With industrialization, maybe we add to the phenomena. But, today's climate is consistent with past historical patterns.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

The data my friend acquired during the most recent Antarctic exploration is included in that graph as well.

Very true. A quick look at climate history will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected.

And my health has been fluxuating since the day I was born. So, don't you tell me that I can't eat lead paint!

It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!

Actually, we're in a warm period. Looking at this graph of temperature variations over the past 400,000+ years shows that the temperature has fluxuated between 2C hotter than modern temperatures (for brief periods) and 10C cooler than modern temperatures. We're definitely on the warm end of those historical temperatures. Global Warming is not going to "get us back to where we need to be". http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/

Just because the values are not certain, or are based on climate models, does not mean they are "wild assed guesses".

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

"Page 19 - There is a wide band of uncertainty as to the amount of uncertainty in the warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gase concentration"

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess. Models and data please!!

The warming of CO2 is actually relatively well established; what is uncertain is how much it is amplified by feedbacks.

What do you expect me to take this on faith? I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

The full Working Group I report (not just the Summary for Policymakers) has references to the literature.

I found it right over here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

They're based on both instrumental and ice core data, among other sources. The ice core data is not the long-term Vostok data for ice ages you're referring to, but just over the last few centuries.

Well why not use the Vostok data? Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason. What if the temperature rising is causing increases in CO2? CO2 becoming less soluble in the oceans, less vegetation as deserts grow, etc.

Ok, what do you want to know?

Alright:
1. What explains the fall of CO2 and temperature simultaneously in the ice core data (with temperature leading slightly)?
2. If you notice at the end of the ice core data there is a very sharp rise in CO2 (Humans show up) but the temperature levels off.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

For me the ice core data is pretty convincing evidence that CO2 increases are not responsible for global warming. Again CO2 is increasing, temperature is increasing. CO2, at the amount present in the atmosphere is not contributing significantly to warming. If it was, temperature would follow CO2 in the ice cores not the other way around. The drops in temperature and CO2 following are also strange in the ice cores. That's real data.. 1000s of years not just the last 300.

0: It's Vostok! No "l" in there at all.

1: Don't believe it unless you've got the data. As I understand it, the variance between temp and CO2 are less than the margin of certainty in the data. here's someone who agrees with me.

2: Go into a greenhouse with a pair of thermometers and a black concrete block. Put the concrete block in direct sunlight, and place one thermometer on the block and one right in front of the glass. Put a fan blowing on the therm. by the glass. The rock will get hotter noticeably faster, both due to the air circulation and simple conductivity.

3: If Sun Spots were causing more cloud cover, there'd be evidence of this. We've had satellites staring down at the planet for quite awhile, checking the cloud cover of every part of the united states for, well, as long as I've been old enough to look at the weather. If it really is the cause, it should be a simple matter to pull them up and prove it.

4: I am not a statistician, nor a geologist, nor an ecologist. Heck, I'm not even a Scientist. And neither is Al Gore, or the right-wing pundits who dismiss his argument because they hate all things Democratic. I do know that an amazing majority of scientists think it's highly likely we're causing increased global warming, and the proper counter argument to scientific consensus is a theory supported by data, not a mere rhetorical theory.

As for the "documentary" -- there's no scam involved in global warming. Aside from injecting an ad hominem attack into what should be a scientific debate, the practical question about "global warming" isn't really one of how well one believes in the CO2 theory, it's one that simply asks "do you think pollution is a good thing?"

If you're still on the fence, consider this: We will run out of fossil fuels in the next 200 years, and our international security is currently disjoined by the disproportionate value given to countries that can export crude oil. It's in our interest to conserve and replace our dependence on them as soon as possible.

The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing

here's a chart, though it doesnt show the 2000 levels very well, you can see a sharp spike that shows roughly double the maximum co2 levels seen across the previous 400,000 years at the '00 mark. notice how temperature (in blue) tracks with co2 levels, and shows greater sensitivity to co2 at peaks.

  remember temperature is related to atmospheric co2 in the same way economic growth is related to money supply.

we have millions of years of ice core data giving us a feel for global temperature.. and because we continue to drill we get more and more data every year.

here is a sample of that data charted

In the link you mentioned, they ask for you to look at the graphs on the next page. If you do, you'll see a sharp rise in CO2 levels unmatched in level or rate by any other point or rise in the ice core data.

Unprecedented high temperatures in recent history, perhaps. Unprecedented in terms of Earth's history? I'm afraid not. Notice the three sharp spikes occurring at roughly 130,000 year intervals. We started such a rise about 15,000 years ago, right at the expected time if the pattern repeats, but something levelled it off around present-day levels and has kept it there for the last 10,000 years. Whatever cause the levelling-out it wasn't humans, we weren't doing anything on a scale large enough to cause global effects 15,000 years back. If whatever it is stops, I'd expect global temperatures to spike by another 2-3 degrees C, then drop sharply to 4-6 degrees C below "normal".

Look at that graph again

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Yes, both lines seem to follow the same pattern. But which one is the independant variable? It is impossible to tell. It very well could be that raising temperatures CAUSES the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, and not the other way around. There are logical paths that could serve either purpose.

a. CO2 in the atmosphere blocks low freq EM waves, heating the earths surface.

OR

b. Higher temps cause more seawater to evaporate, meaning more water vapor travelling into the atmosphere, carrying with it more CO2

Now the real thing to note here is the rapid increase in CO2 emissions in the most recent years, and the temperature variation is at ZERO. To me, this says that Temperature is the independant variable, and CO2 is the dependant variable. To you non science folk, this means that rise in temperature, caused from who knows what...be it other man-made chemicals or natural earth cycles, CAUSES the rise in CO2.

There are times when I read an article, when they say something demostrably untrue and it makes me think the whole article is questionable. Here's an example from this article:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

No correlation? This is clearly wrong. Here are charts that show a pretty nice correlation.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Don't tell me something that I know is wrong because it's only going to discredit your competency and make me wonder what over half-truths and outright lies are contained in the article.

There are times when I read an article, when they say something demostrably untrue and it makes me think the whole article is questionable. Here's an example from this article:
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

No correlation? This is clearly wrong. Here are charts that show a pretty nice correlation.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Don't tell me something that I know is wrong because it's only going to discredit your competency and make me wonder what over half-truths and outright lies are contained in the article.

Antarctic Ice Core Data

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/

Enjoy!

Can you cite any of those studies you mention? Can't find them right now? I guessed so. Why don't you make some actual research, before starting to make up numbers?

Read for example this

(Note that the data is not just from a random web page. It is taken from peer-reviewed publications.)

It will reveal you that current estimates for the last 100,000 years never went higher than one or two degrees, at the warmest periods, from our current average temperatures. Now, if you call that MUCH higher... And believe me, the researches on whose work the report we are discussiong about is based known about this estimates much more than I (or you, I bet) do.

and read the text with it:

Antarctic Ice Core Data
and
A Closer Look

and read the text with it:

Antarctic Ice Core Data
and
A Closer Look

"Why isn't that enough?"

Because people see and hear only what they want.

I recently watched a company representative make a speech against global warming during an unrelated meeting using a chart from this site except that this person conveniently left out the chart that would have disproved the whole rant: the chart showing CO2 is significantly higher than it has ever been.

Not only did that person use a company event to espouse a personal belief, that person left off the most important part of the data just to make that person's opinion look better.

"Why isn't that enough?"

Because people see and hear only what they want.

I recently watched a company representative make a speech against global warming during an unrelated meeting using a chart from this site except that this person conveniently left out the chart that would have disproved the whole rant: the chart showing CO2 is significantly higher than it has ever been.

Not only did that person use a company event to espouse a personal belief, that person left off the most important part of the data just to make that person's opinion look better.

"News flash: The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now, even within the span of human history, and the biosphere survived."

The earth, however, for the last few hundred thousand years has not seen these levels of CO2, ever. Also, the temperature lags CO2 levels.

Antarctic Ice Core Data
Be sure to look at the graph on the second page.

Tell you what, I will give you this one thing:

Ice carries various substances suspended in frozen bubbles and in solution. Some of those substances can be used to date the ice fairly accurately. And some of those substances are greenhouse gases like CO2. Deep cores of polar ice have revealed the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide at various points in the past.

Now Google for the following terms: polar ice cores CO2 OR "carbon dioxide".

The top link:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/

If you cant be bothered here is a short summary of what you would learn if you did:

At the beginning of the industrial age about 150 years ago the concentration of atmospheric CO2 started rising faster than at any other time in the past 420,000 years and it has continued to rise at that rate ever since then. Not only that, it is now 130% higher than at any previous time in the past 420,000 years. You can also see how atmospheric CO2 fluctuations have always been positively correlated with temperature throughout that entire period except that during the industrial age the CO2 has risen so fast that the temperature hasn't caught up yet.

That's it.

If you are having trouble "seeing" the data in the graph, here is a hint. Ignore the five roughly saw-tooth peaks that occupy all those hundreds of millennia. They are just the interglacial periods. Instead look at the very extreme right hand edge of the graph where the red line goes absolutely VERTICAL hugging the edge of the graph representing a rate of increase faster than anywhere else on the graph. That line is where the data points for the past 150 years are. Also note that this is the only place where the red line reaches so high up the graph.

Note that this is graph shows an accumulation of data from similar experiments repeated over and over again by different teams of researchers with different ice cores, with broadly the same findings in each case.

So just looking at the graph alone you can see that CO2 levels have been increasing at an *unprecedented* rate ever since we started burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale, and they now greatly exceed any of the historical fluctuations provided by nature (or preindustrial man) before that. But read the text for a fairly balanced analysis.

Draw your own conclusions.

What really sucks is when people who are sensible skeptical about controversial research also have data. Because then you have to actually put up some of your own instead of firing off snide comments about people whose views are inconvenient.

It doesn't take much effort to look at historical temperature readings and notice that there is a cycle of warming and cooling that the planet undergoes, and the modern industrial age happens to coincidence with one rather closely. In fact, the current warming trend started about 10,000 years ago. While I can't say with complete authority that auto emissions and industrial pollutants weren't present at the time, I feel comfortable in hazarding a guess that the small population of humans were contributing negligably to the planet's greenhouse gases.

What IS interesting is that this warming cycle, ramps up over about 10,000 years and then gradually cools. Repeated melting and refreezing of the ice caps appears to be normal and we do not currently know whether climate change causes greenhouse gases to increase or the other way around. Or if they both occur in synchrony and are caused by something else entirely.

The danger here is that the cooling mechanism has failed to kick in, and it normally would have begun LONG before American capitalism and human greed stepped in to fuck up the planet.

Doubtless that our own contributions to global GTG content is not helping any, but I do not believe that there is conclusive evidence that our planet's temparture is primarily or even partially influenced to any significant degree by the behavior of its inhabitants at the current time. Something is different right now, that's for sure. We may or may not be the cause of it. There's at least a few components at work here, however, that we are not responsible for and cannot do anything about.

Sadly, there's a vacuum of intellectual integrity in the global warming debate precisely because of smug shitheads like you.

"The difference in temperature trends (winter minus summer) in the satellite data shows that the warming has been predominantly occurring in the coldest air masses over Siberia in the wintertime"

Uh, the glaciers on Antarctica are continuously moving, and rebuilding. Snow falls year after year, after year, and the glaciers keep moving, and rebuilding.

They are continuously moving, but the sea ice shelf is holding back the glaciers from moving a lot faster, which has allowed so much ice to form on Antarctica. If the sea ice melts, all the glaciers would be able to "dump" their ice (which is currently over land) into the oceans, which would raise the water levels. It is not necesarrily the melting of the ice over Antarctica itself that will cause the sea levels to rise.

And, yes, the glaciers are moving faster. And, yes, this could - eventually - effect water levels. And, no, there is no possible way that this would happen within 10 years time. There is a mere outside chance that it may happen over the next 200 (two hundred) years.

Its not that it will occur in 10 years, but if we don't change the way that we currently use fossil fuels etc... it will be very hard to stop Antarctica melting within that 200 year timeframe, due to positive feedback in out atmosphere. (look to Venus for how positive feedback can occur, and how its atmosphere ended up as a 400 deg C maelstrom, as opposed to Earth, an essentially similar planet)

What we don't know is how much we can effect this change - in either direction.

What we do know is that CO2 levels are the highes they have been since known atmospheric history (420,000 years) and that CO2 levels have had a close correlation to temperature over that period. (Although we dont know that they are causally linked.)

Whilst we don't know how much we can affect this change, we do know that if we carry on as we are, things will certainly not get better, and warmer weather is not necessarily better, ~14,000 excess deaths occurred from heat related problems in France during Summer 2003, which is a lot more than the ~3,000 who died in 9/11. (Although 9/11 showed how bad the USA's homeland security was at the time - all the flights took off from US airports on internal flights.)

The current Global Warming period is not a "cyclical" event. It's already proven to be taking place faster than anything Earth ever experienced, and is directly correlated to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Antarctic ice cores bear witness to temperature and CO2 records (direct evidence) for hundreds of thousands of years.

Take a look at the
past 420,000 years
and contrast that with the
last 18,000, 200, and 50 years.

As for the rest of your screed, I just believe you're simply ignorant.

The current Global Warming period is not a "cyclical" event. It's already proven to be taking place faster than anything Earth ever experienced, and is directly correlated to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Antarctic ice cores bear witness to temperature and CO2 records (direct evidence) for hundreds of thousands of years.

Take a look at the
past 420,000 years
and contrast that with the
last 18,000, 200, and 50 years.

As for the rest of your screed, I just believe you're simply ignorant.

Can I have a play on that slippery slope once you're done with it?

This may seem like a slippery slope fallacy, but it is indeed based on solid evidence. Analysis of historical climates indicates that climate changes are indeed very sudden.

source
source
source
source

But hey... we can wait untill our society has been crushed by global climate change before we take off our blinders.

The argument is convincing, and I haven't heard a good counterargument.

Curve of temperatures over the last two millenia

CO2 levels over the last 500k years as measured from the arctic ice record (notice the huge spike at the end of the graph)

What you fail to see is that the "other side of the argument" is supported by kooks and / or people paid by the industry. Note that I am certainly not blaming you for this: to a layman (and we are all laymen in most domains, regardless of our expertise in any particular domain), this is not obvious. The kooks exploit this fact and present themselves as respectable scientists which 99% of the time they are not.

The consensus on global warming in the scientific community (read: people who do actual science and publish papers through peer-reviewing processes) is among the strongest you'll find in any scientific field.

I think the best possible parallel is with creationism. To many people in the US, it is not at all unreasonable to think that the earth is less than 10000 years old. After all, the crackpots who support these kinds of "theories" seem respectable and their arguments sound plausible. The general public cannot be expected to know that these "arguments", when they exist (most of the creationist babble runs along the lines of "I can't understand how something as complex as life could evolve, therefore it didn't"), are based on lies and falsehoods.

Thomas-

Will a dataset covering 500x that long be sufficient?

Note the current ramp up, from a cyclic highpoint.

Sooooo... next quibble? If we work through enough, maybe you'll notice that reality isn't optional.

That's a very interesting chart. It clearly shows each rise in global temperature levels *precedes* the rise in CO2 levels. It also shows wild swings in CO2 and temperature levels over the eons -- clearly not human-related -- prior to the latest levels. It also shows all human progess in civilization occurred during the latest very high temperature levels.

This data seems to disagree with yours.

Which do you believe?

I ought to correct a mistake I made in my previous post. It seems that CO2 levels are actually higher now than they have been for at least 400,000 years, although still not as bad as it seems if you compare with only more recent figures. reference here.

I live fairly close to a number of farms that grow trees specifically for paper production. They aren't what you would expect. The trees are basically just cottonwood trees, which have long been thought of more or less of as a weed. They plant very dense fields of these trees that grow to about 60-70' tall in about 8 years when they are 7" in diameter and harvested. It's almost scary to look at a field of them. The trees grow oftentimes right up to the edge of the road, and in a very short distance you could be in the middle of a dark forest, not knowing which way to turn. Take a look at this link for an idea of what these plantations look like):

http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Produ cts/Ethanol/

That's capitalism for you.

Looks a little like socialism to me...Maybe I'm not sure what capitaism is, but from what I was taught in school, this doesn't look like it.

If you're really interested in a good analysis of the Bush administration's motives in Iraq, check out this article. The conclusion is that it is primarily about oil, specifically control over the price of oil.

Nonsense.
Two seconds of research would've told you that the arctic sea ice is receding, not increasing.

That you got the central fact wrong does not bode well for the rest of your "argument".