By Kenneth Richard on 4. April 2019
A new paper indicates the rise in CO2 concentration occurred well after the Northern Hemisphere’s ocean circulation changes drove the abrupt warming (~11,700 years ago) that ended the last ice age – a lag that effectively leaves no causal role for CO2 during deglaciation.
Ice core evidence from Antarctica also affirms no causal link for CO2 during deglaciation.
The Holocene record itself also contradicts the narrative that says CO2 increases drive climate warming. For the last ~10,000 years, ocean temperatures, surface temperatures, and sea levels fell as CO2 concentrations rose.
Posted in Cooling/Temperature, Paleo-climatology |
They’re just not BELIEVING hard enough, …or something.
Jean Jouzel (former IPCC vice president) co-author of the first article (surprise !) published in march 2018 …
and Jean Jouzel endorsing the IPCC last fearmongering publication (october 2018) :
https://www.goodplanet.info/actualite/2018/10/08/jean-jouzel-reagit-rapport-giec-politiques-responsabilites/
How many Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the climate pseudo-science ?
Oh dear, nt exactly to the UN-IPPC script.
The more reality is measured, the more the preferred climate models are found wanting.
Thank you for telling us what everyone already knows. Must feel like a big victory for CO2 skeptics 😉
Ah, the good old skeptical “the correlation must be linear for there to be any connection” argument … question: would you also claim that there is no connection between acceleration, speed and distance driven after seeing a graph showing curves of each?
Understand the mechanisms and you’ll get why CO2 can rise while it’s getting colder and vice versa. Arguing from a position of ignorance (or willful misinterpretation) is never a good idea.
SebastionH: “Understand the mechanisms and you’ll get why CO2 can rise while it’s getting colder and vice versa.” So there’s a mechanism that you understand (and we don’t) that works “vice versa”? More CO2 makes it warmer, except when it makes it colder? Your own words, friend. And you wonder why your comments drop into the water without leaving a ripple.
Not my words friend, at least if vice versa and the rest of my words mean what I think they mean.
No, I don’t wonder anymore … I realized this is not anything close to water here a long time ago, it’s more like tar. I guess ignorance is bliss, right?
If you’re happy….
I am not. You just made something up and tried to explain to me that whatever you made up is why nobody would be convinceable here. And that’s your reply, friend.
Well, since you’re so clever, seb, put us poor ignoranti right and explain why a lack of correlation means causation. I understand why correlation does not necessarily mean causation but how one thing can cause another if there is no correlation is a puzzle.
Consider acceleration and how it causes the speed to increase/decrease and the distance driven accordingly:
https://imgur.com/a/i5JfV
Do you see a correlation in those lines? Hopefully this opened the world of non-linear correlations for you to discover.
Other examples would be:
– using a heating element and observing the power applied together with its temperature
– drag (from wind) and the speed you move forward
But hat is not all there is to correlations. What happens in cases where multiple things happen at the same time? You prepare for that job interview tomorrow by staying up late and reviewing what you want to say. That increases your prepardness, but staying up late decreases this somewhat. Both effects could just cancel each other out (staying up late hasn’t improved your interview performance) and you would see causation without correlation.
In case of CO2, the gas gets introduced into the atmosphere by many processes and gets taken out of the atmosphere by many processes as well. At the same time its existence influences variables that in turn control how those processes work. There can’t be a simple linear correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration because of this and anyone looking for one or not finding one would confirm something hasn’t understood this yet (in my view). Got it?
Instead of bending over backwards, twisting and contorting with all levels of inane, ridiculously unrelated “analogies”, the simple explanation could be that there has been no clear-cut causal connection from CO2 to temperature for all or nearly all of the last 80,000 years.
Where does CO2’s forcing fit into these two dozen 8-15°C Greenland warmings (within decades) during the last glacial? Nowhere. CO2 remained the same – 190 ppm – throughout both the warmings and the coolings.
Where does CO2’s forcing fit into the 4-5°C NH warming (that occurred within 20 years) 14,700 years ago? Nowhere. CO2 didn’t budge from 230 ppm throughout that warming.
Where does CO2’s forcing fit into the 3°C cooling in the 0-700 m ocean. Nowhere. CO2 rises and OHC falls.
Kenneth, you don’t get to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when you don’t understand the mechanisms involved.
In your three examples you seem to expect that there should be CO2 forcing involved in every warming or cooling event for what science says about CO2 to be true. Why? An yes, the CO2 levels in the area the EPICA Dome C ice core was retrieved can vary by small amounts in the opposite direction of a temperature change at a certain depth in a certain place in the Pacific. Those small change in the CO2 level result from the ocean outgassing or absorbing CO2. In the image you linked to last – if one sees those graphs are representative of the global situation – what do you think happens when OHC decreases. How does the ocean lose heat? By a warmer surface! A warmer surface outgases more CO2.
You can go on and try to talk everything away as ridiculous analogies or you could finally try to understand the mechanisms behind what you try to argue against. Would make you a better skeptic, don’t you think?
I have no such expectation. I don’t start from the presupposition that CO2 drives climate. Therefore, your entire premise here is wrong.
The ocean loses heat when it receives and absorbs less solar radiation, such as when volcanic flood events (i.e., Siberian Traps) blocked out the Sun’s radiance for an extended period, leading to more than a 100 meters of sea level decline and mass species extinctions for the shallower-dwelling marine life. The CO2 concentration effectively has nothing to do with it, as these global cooling/100+ meter sea level drop episodes can occur with 2,000+ ppm or 300 ppm.
Explain why the Earth was covered in ice sheets while CO2 concentrations were 2,000+ ppm and 300 ppm. CO2 is not determinative of the temperature of the ocean if both sets of CO2 conditions have the same level of glaciation.
Instead of explaining it, you’ll probably present another of your ridiculous analogies or whine that I “don’t understand the mechanisms” again. It’s a broken record.
Might be the language barrier, but that isn’t what I wrote, I think. Another attempt: you ask where the CO2 forcing fits in situations where it is not linearly correlating. For me this means you expect that there should be such a correlation (more CO2 leading to higher temperatures) and if it’s not there, then CO2 is not influencing climate. Did I understand this wrong?
Why should it? Again, you are still arguing out of ignorance. I don’t know what is so hard in trying to understand what those you argue against say CO2 is capable of before you fire your missiles at the target. You are completely missing the point and basically arguing against strawmen here …
What’s the point, my reply will get deleted anyway. You can’t really be thinking that I am saying CO2 is the only control knob for temperature, yet you are arguing as if that is the case. Another strawman if you will …
The thing is, my explanations get deleted. So … if this gets through, in reality you are the broken record and just don’t seem to realize it. And yes, this planet can have any temperature with any CO2 concentration … do you know why? Because CO2 isn’t the only thing determining its temperature or heat content. In anticipation of your reply to this: nope, that doesn’t mean those other variables could have easily caused the modern warming then.
No, I’m not asking that. I’m pointing out – not a question – that there is no clear connection for CO2 and temperature for the last 80,000 years…unless one wishes to claim the correlation goes the other way (temperature falls as CO2 rises), in which cases there is a stronger correlation in that direction than any other.
The CO2 concentration effectively has nothing to do with it, as these global cooling/100+ meter sea level drop episodes can occur with 2,000+ ppm or 300 ppm.
Precisely! It shouldn’t, since the claimed link between CO2 forcing and temperature isn’t there. That’s precisely the point.
No, I’ve not written that I think you think CO2 is the “only” control knob…for the paleoclimate. I realize that you’ve written other factors contributed. It’s only the last few hundred years that you’ve written you believe humans are 100% responsible for heating the ocean. So, once again, you’ve donned another faux argument.
My apologies, I thought “Where does CO2’s forcing fit into [something]?” would be a question directed at me.
Well, how is that not “pointing out” that there should be a linear correlation at any time? The mechnism isn’t linear. If we stopped emitting CO2 today and the concentration would decrease slightly in the following year, the forcing wouldn’t just vanish.
You really can’t imagine how this would work with a connection between both? Note, you don’t have to agree with that, but at least try to understand what other people try to explain to you about this connection. Instead we get this … “that’s the point” … well, if you think so it must be right.
You don’t need to actually write this, it shines through your replies.
Interesting definition/example of a faux argument. Did I write “the last few hundred years”? No, I didn’t. Did I write “I believe”? No, I didn’t. So … faux argument? Seems like you just did that. Case closed …
No, I’ve not written that I think you think CO2 is the “only” control knob…for the paleoclimate
Nice job cutting off the emboldened “for the paleoclimate” so as to make it appear I wrote something I didn’t.
It’s only the last few hundred years that you’ve written you believe humans are 100% responsible for heating the ocean.
Sorry, apparently it was since 1900, or since the 20th century began (based on the link you provided after your attribution comment here):
You’re right. You don’t believe humans are 100% responsible for warming the ocean since 1900. You know it.
Does it change anything? I’ll just fullquote you next time, ok? If that is what it takes to make you stop insisting on commenting “exact words” … this is very distracting.
Nope, nice try but that is not what I wrote. Anyway, are we cool now regarding CO2 and what it does and doesn’t do? Are you willing to learn something or will you just continue to ask questions that just show that you don’t want to understand how temperature and CO2 concentration are connected?
I ask because you are now just replying to distractions from the topic. That surely leads to nowhere …
I’d like to learn how much warming in a water body that increasing the CO2 concentration in the air above it (by, say, 50 ppm) will cause. We have no real-world measurements for this, so it could be 0.0000000000000001 K or it could be 0.00000001 K. No one knows.
On the other hand, a real world experiment demonstrates that the effect of CO2 (or other GHGs) is “negligible”. So I’m guessing the 0.000000000000000001 K value is correct. What do you believe the quantified effect is, SebastianH?
“There can’t be a simple linear correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration because of this and anyone looking for one or not finding one would confirm something hasn’t understood this yet”
And yet, this is the fundamental “settled science” at the core of the IPCC’s doom-and-gloom climate models — that increased CO2 concentration and increased temperature are monotonically linked.
No, that’s not what the IPCC (or science) says.
Um, I don’t know where you got this “argument”, but it certainly isn’t one that is made here.
There is a correlation identified in the article and the graphs from scientific papers: for the last 10,000 (and earlier – deglaciation), CO2 rose as ocean and surface temperatures and sea levels fell.
Go ahead and explain it, then, SebastianH. Why does CO2 rise as the planet cools for centuries and millennia?
Yes it is made here.
There it is …
The internet is full of wonderful explanations, Kenneth. You wouldn’t believe me anything anyway.
KR: Um, I don’t know where you got this “argument”, but it certainly isn’t one that is made here.
KR: There is a correlation identified in the article and the graphs from scientific papers: for the last 10,000 (and earlier – deglaciation), CO2 rose as ocean and surface temperatures and sea levels fell.
Uh, no. As usual, your made-up “argument” isn’t remotely similar to what I wrote. I didn’t write “it must be linear for there to be any connection”, nor would I use such absolutist language.
Try again. As you’ve been told previously, if you make up arguments that no one made and dishonestly claim that people are making those arguments, your comment or most of your comment will be deleted. We’re done accommodating your dishonesty.
Ahh, CO2 is now the God molecule that can do everything – heat and cool, depending on whatever it wants to do, damn the physics.
The mechanisms you state has to do precisely with the physics of LWIR backradiation. Do the physics change depending on what is convenient to maintaining a talking point?
So CO2 is still rising but the ‘accelerating’ warming fails to show its face, and again the UN-IPCC, the theory, and the models that are based on it is a massive failure.
So much for the theoretical paradigm, reality wins again. From LIA to today there is just the ‘normal’, natural warming. Nothing alarming or unusual.
So much for theory! Just ignorant beliefs not based on observations.
The IPCC and the world’s media have not yet focused on the recent global cooling trends with the same vigor as they have focused on the past warming trends. The IPCC and the media have been “cherry picking” natural high temperature anomalies that have been occurring in some areas around the world as examples of global warming and this assists them in hiding the true extent of global cooling. Cooling that would be much more devastating for all of this planet’s life. Many government agencies around the world have unscientifically ‘adjusted’ and cherry picked temperature records to show warming. They’ve systematically been reducing the number sites, ensuring that their modern collection of stations are biased to a preference for urbanized areas (and all the attendant urban heat island effect). Researchers have learned that by highlight warming, it keeps them on the road to fat pay checks and more research grants, instead of carrying out honest objective science.
The sun provides the basic energy for our climate. It is the sun, and not CO2, that is the regulator of our climate. The sun, and the ocean cycles determine the majority of the trend direction that this planet’s climate takes, and not some merely theoretical CO2 warming. The recent small rise in CO2’s only effect to date has to been to give us a greener planet. The oceans haven’t catastrophically acidified, the oceans levels are not (and are not likely to) rise catastrophically.
The catastrophist of climate doom, the cAGW advocates are the losers.
These losers can not show any evidence of continuous and ‘accelerating’ warming for the last 60 years. There has been recently (for at least 30 years) nothing unusual, nothing abnormal, nothing unnatural happening with the world’s weather or climate.
Their mechanism of CO2 warming is wrong — it is nothing but pseudoscience and massive amounts of propaganda.
Not shown by the major news outlets are the devastating cold snaps that have been occurring all around the world during the last decade or so of winters. These are just a little taste of what is most likely to come during the next few decades as (highly probable) climate cooling happens.
And it is quite true ‘The Holocene record itself also contradicts the narrative that says CO2 increases drive climate warming. For the last ~10,000 years, ocean temperatures, surface temperatures, and sea levels fell as CO2 concentrations rose.’ … Even cAGW advocates (apart from the truly deranged ones) can not deny this — it is part of the record of what has happened.
As for the illogical cAGW advocates that propound some idiotic CO2 climate message this is a reply to them that states the reality of their ‘argument’ (well, their lack of an argument) most clearly …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM
😆 😉
I am with the skeptics but always trying to stay one step ahead of their “debunking”. So let me play devil’s advocate now. These ancient records show how CO2 changes follow temperature changes. Let’s admit that. But, they will say, that is if you leave the Earth in it’s natural state. However, they will say, no ancient records can disprove the effect that man-made CO2 loads in the atmosphere have on temperature. So there isn’t much destructive power to their delusional theories in these ancient observations.
What say you now? I suppose you need to find CO2 spikes that were not trailing temperature spikes having no or negative effects on temperature? Volcanic or massive forest fires? Anything? There may not be a natural experiment found in the geologic record?
“There may not be a natural experiment found in the geologic record?” – Gunther Schadow
CO2/Temperature correlation in Earth’s history doesn’t exist.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Also, as can be seen in the figure, we are basically recovering from an ice age now. A bit more warmth is to be expected, and won’t hurt.
Looks more like this for the recent history:
https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg
Thanks. That has nothing to do with drought, but if you look carefully, it does show temperatures leading CO2.
Now, if you don’t like the graph I posted, here are a few more to choose from, among them some other paleo reconstructions.
https://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
Yonason,
Plenty of assertions (as usual) from the troll, but we’re still no nearer to knowing what fraction of the observed small rise in global surface temperature over the last century is attributable to the human-induced increase (through land and water use changes), natural variation, or even to the wild idea that atmospheric carbon dioxide could (given it’s nonlinear effectiveness with increasing level) causes any warming above natural variation.
Logically it could be anything, including nothing — aka just natural variation . Science don’t even have a CO2 number to work with, as any natural increases are poorly quantified. That is to say there is NO numbers that say how much CO2 can change the climate. However in many countries national energy policy pushes on with the fantasy, destroying efficient grids, regardless of the huge uncertainties as to the exact nature of changes in the climate, and not reducing CO2 levels one iota.
Why be so polite to a rude troll? A troll who just misunderstands his reference to ‘the mechanism’ (aka a fancy supposition). A mechanism that seems to ignore science by neglecting the very short distance IR radiation can travel in the atmosphere*, or messes-up the science that says that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is just basic physics. Something ‘the mechanism’ lacks.
* Notes —
This distance can be readily calculated from the absorption of gaseous carbon dioxide.
See Phys. Rev. 41, 291 – 303 (1932) P. E. Martin and E. F. Barker “The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide”.
Thomas and Stamnes (Thomas, G.E. and Stamnes, K. ‘Radiative Transfer in the Atmosphere and Ocean. Cambridge University Press, 1999, page 91) that shows 0% transmittance at 22 km and below for the 15 micron CO2 band. This section discusses the “opaque region” and also gives a very clear discussion of line broadening, which is an additional point that many people (and trolls) are unfamiliar with.
Schneider, Kucerovsky, and Brannen (Appl. Opt. 28:5, 1998) give an absorption coefficient at 9.90 ± 1.49cm-1 atm-1 for low concentrations of CO2 in a 1-atm nitrogen atmosphere at 4.2 microns. This works out to 376 absorbance units per km for 380 ppm CO2, which is about as close to 100% absorption as you can get.
Heinz Hug measured a similar value (0.03 absorbance units/10 cm for 357 ppm at 15µm) (http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).
Your graph is a CO2 vs. temperature graph, mine is one as well. How is mine suddenly not relevant (“has nothing to do with drought”)? Esepcially considering you are talking about the recent past (“recovering from an ice age now”).
I assume you mean the little ice age? Because it has been cooling every since the Holecene optimum. But yeah, warming is expected. Only for other reasons than you think.
It’s not about liking graphs …
tomOmason,
Only in your imagination. This argument is frequently used by skeptics … could be anything. It’s like blaming the dog that the laundry is still not washed. Could be his fault for all we know, right?
Are ranges to difficult for skeptics to accept?
Why be rude to anyone who doesn’t share you fantastic beliefs?
The mechanisms are basic physics, how can they ignore science? We know about it because of science. You are being weird …
But who am I talking to anyway. There is no convincing you. No amount of explanation from any source imaginable could make you understand or realize where you went wrong. So please continue to troll me, write you stuff about nothing being like we observe it to be and whatever else you can imagine in your reality to be true. The people outside your bubble don’t care and the cheerleaders here love it. Good for you 😉
SebastianH 8. April 2019 at 12:36 PM,
Trolling me again, so in reply —
More of your nonsense, or are you advocating that natural events do not drive this planets climate? If you are then you are more deranged than I suspected!
So you’re denying “A mechanism that seems to ignore science by neglecting the very short distance IR radiation can travel in the atmosphere*,…”
and
“…exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is just basic physics. …” You, SebastianH are deny that too!
Typical of know nothing, anti-science cAGW advocates.
Your cAGW bubble of “mechanism” nonsense is just that. You rely on the IPCC fantasy.
That is, CO2 is IR interactive but is understood to be largely saturated at the IR band in which it is active in this planets atmosphere.
Many skeptics acknowledge there is a rise of about 1.1°C per doubling of CO2 (I remain unconvinced that anyone truly knows as there are so many other components at work.) However this figure was not scary enough for cAGW propagandists (and the dimwit followers), so they invented and propagandized (with NO real evidence) that is should be more like 3°C/doubling, or more, by the simple expedient of supposing a “positive feedback”. This is all your ‘mechanism’ relies on — an anti-science, non-physical hokum! There is no evidence to show there is any “positive feedback”, NONE! Your advocacy only has a belief in this anti-science fantasy.
It should be recognized (but I note, not by you) that CO2 is a very rare (but biologically essential) gas. Currently, with a level in the atmosphere at just over 400 ppm (parts per million) or 0.04%. That’s one molecule in 2500. Further it is believed that if the concentration were as low as 150 ppm, plant life (and all other life in response) would begin to fail!
Currently the atmospheric CO2 level is piffling compared to other times when it was MUCH higher and was MUCH colder than now!
Accordingly, the sometimes-held view that the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are not that far above plant starvation is reasonably held. Indeed, many real commercial glass greenhouses add CO2, up to 800-1500 ppm (around 100%-150%) for better growth, and usually obtained by burning natural gas.
The climate changes SebastianH, and nature is in control of it — no doubt you’ll deny that too!
This is what SebastianH denies —
https://ufile.io/5ktz9
And also denies the real science of atmospheric CO2.
In real science it’s been shown, that a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and becomes excited. The excited molecule “bends” and creates “dipole” vibration. If enough time passes and nothing collides with the excited molecule, it will re-emit the photon. That CO2 bending mode transition, with a wavelength of 15 Microns and about 1/30 the matrix element should have a lifetime of the order of 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2seconds.
More likely, by a factor of 1 billion, is that the molecule will collide with another molecule, most probably a N2 molecule, and transfer that energy to the N2 molecule without re-emitting the photon. The energy is simply converted from EM energy to kinetic energy. Therefore, because CO2 only represents 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere, an excited CO2 molecule can’t really alter the entire energy balance by much. So, after a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. That turns out to be correct in 1/1,000,000,000 events, or statistically insignificant.
Look-up Professor Will Happer (a world renowned specialist in this field) for all the intriguing minutiae of CO2’s EM absorption and radiation abilities.
So much for an SebastianH flawed “mechanism”!
@tom0mason 8. April 2019 at 7:22 PM
Nicely done.
tomOmason, you pull stuff out of thin air and freely interpret things I wrote building up monstruous strawmen. Kenneth accuses me of doing that with him, but here you are being the perfect example of that dishonest discussion culture. Throw in a bit or mirroring and some cheerleading from your friend Yonason and voila … the perfect skeptic response 😉
You wasted your time barking at the wrong tree for 2 consecutive comments. Just so you know, I am not denying anything you said I would deny. On the other hand you arguments are flawed and that’s not the mechanism I was talking about. Kenneth asked himself in the article how CO2 can decrease while it is warming (in some places) and increase while it is cooling (in some places). He further asked himself how temperature could change quite a bit while CO2 was relatively stable … shouldn’t it have spiked if it were the control for temperature? I was replying to this …
So SebastianH 8. April 2019 at 11:53 PM has no reply to me quoting real science.
I just knew I was wasting my time again, you appear too ridiculous to bother with. So run away SebastianH clinging vainly to your worthless script and a foolish belief in a dumb ‘mechanism’ you can not explain.
Sheesh, I refuse to waste anymore time on the vacuous, inept troll SebastianH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Ian Plimer warns:
“I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more ‘greenhouse gases’ into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.”
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.
Oh, and for those that dismiss Ian Plimer’s credibility on this subject, he is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He’s published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don’t you think?
And if your not convince volcanoes are a big source of CO2 there’s https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
Of course the ignorant SebastianH the cAGW troll, will dispute the merit of the figures but that’s his usual worthless playbook response.
Both Ian Plimer and Will Happer are FAR more credible than anything SebastianH has ever offered.
Ah, so this is how discussions work for you? Your opponent can’t be bothered to reply to your nonsense, so you automatically win the argument? 😉
Stop trolling!
Yes, stop wasting our time, yours and mine. Even though I grave your insults, I can probably live without them.
Well, the thing is Mt Pinatubo emitted roughly 42 million tonnes of CO2. It’s great to you try to strengthen your “argument” by listing things about the person claiming this, but this claim still runs counter to any other research on the topic …
Huh? So estimates are 600 million tons, yet a single volcano emitted more than all of humanity ever did in 1991? Right … at least be consistent, tomOmason.
Of course I will … skeptics claiming volcanos emit more CO2 than humans will always get disputed. It’s the same ridiculous claim as there being no CO2 GHE 😉
Looking forward to the time where you don’t troll me with these things.
Or you could go full skeptic and behave like the commentators over there (hello spike55):
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/does-co2-lead-or-lag-temperature/
They had an interesting and “polite” debate about CO2 leading or lagging as well 😉
Here is a recent paper about past CO2 “events” causing temperature/climate change:
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0277-3
RE – “recent paper”… “A hallmark of the rapid and massive release of carbon during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum”
During the last half of the Carboniferous and all the Permian, the [CO2] was about what it was today, while the temps were the highest they ever get – about the same as (actually a bit lower than) from the Paleocene to the Oligocene, which the paper blames on CO2. Then, in the Jurassic, temps plummeted while [CO2] was still elevated.
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fcfa62d9970b-pi
Note that there was a jump in [CO2] prior to the Paleocene, which supposedly caused those high temperatures, even though they don’t appear to be quite as elevated as when the [CO2] was less.
So, how does CO2 know which epoch to make warm, which to make cold, and which to not effect at all, and to what degree?
Sorry, but in the context of all the data available to us, that paper proves nothing, especially since it appears to be in conflict with previous results.
Also, scientific papers aren’t supposed to contain “sky is falling” paranoid delusions. That alone tells me the authors are highly biased. It’s a red flag saying “don’t trust these guys.”
RE my last
https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/04/scientists-find-no-causal-link-between-co2-and-nh-warming-during-last-deglaciation/comment-page-1/#comment-1300017
“…about the same as (actually a bit lower than) from the Paleocene to the Oligocene”
should read
“…about the same as (actually a bit higher than) from the Paleocene to the Oligocene”
I just love how you interpret science and graphs …
… and decide what you want to believe.
I remind of you of this last part next time a paper is posted that actually contains language that should tell you the authors are highly biased. Oh, there is one in the newest post (https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/08/new-paper-risk-of-poverty-lower-incomes-increased-energy-costs-directly-linked-with-renewable-energies/#respond) … the one that uses the term “Earth friendly nations”.
Oh, look. More junk science like that one.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/04/07/if-co2-caused-mid-pliocene-warming-what-caused-late-pliocene-cooling-you-guessed/
As Paul Homewood asks, “If CO2 Caused Mid-Pliocene Warming, What Caused late-Pliocene Cooling?” It was the CO2, of course. Such a magic molecule. Is there anything it can’t do?
And I also love how you choose sources. It’s indeed magical …
CO2 has a lower solubility in warm water than cold water. CO2 also has a lower solubility in low pH water than in high pH water.
The oceans are allegedly warming hence CO2 will be outgassed from the oceans in far greater quantities than man’s emissions.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is at least partly a result of outgassing from the oceans so therefore it is extremely unlikely the very weak organic acid of CO2 and H2O will cause any ocean acidification as the concentration is decreasing.
Just add those 2 fallacies to the innumerable failed predictions from the UN IPCC and anyone still believing this gibberish clearly lacks any cognitive ability.
Rosco, it is all about magnitudes. You can imagine that those things cancel each other out or you accept that scientists found that the net result of the current situation is the oceans absorbing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is a result of partial pressure differences.
The outgassing due to warming is no where near the levels of this additional absorption.
Strong words for someone who basically took some scientific sounding things, mixed them together and postulated a new theory of how things ought to work that runs against everything we know while accussing the experts of producing “gibberish” and lacking cognitive ability 😉
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/04/scientists-find-no-causal-link-between-co2-and-nh-warming-during… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/04/04/scientists-find-no-causal-link-between-co2-and-nh-warming-during… […]
[…] K. Richard, April 4, 2019 in […]
SebastianH 8. April 2019 at 11:56 AM
Kenneth, you don’t get to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when you don’t understand the mechanisms involved.
That is truly one of the most hilarious comments I have seen in years! LOL
Are you the same Gator as on the realclimatescience.com blog? The one who posts Harde’s paper to explain someone that he learned something as a geology student and calls people liars? 🙂
I bet you find a lot of things to be hilarious. How is spike55 btw? I miss his constant insults here.
LOL
Seb baby, you never disappoint! Another science free comment, and another lie. I was a geology, climatology, and remote sensing student right after the ice age scare and right before the great global warming swindle. And you my friend made me laugh harder than I have for weeks! Thank you!
Now smarty pants, show your work…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Remember, you don’t get to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when you don’t understand the mechanisms involved.
LOL
SebastianH has stated that “all” of the warming since the 20th century began (see his link) is human-caused. No warming has been caused by natural factors. The +6.8 Wm-2 SW forcing during 1984-2000 from the observed reduction in cloud cover wasn’t a factor.
Gator, old man. Are you related to spike55 in any way? You sound like the same broken record 😉
The rest of you comment sounds more like you are the lovechild of spike55 and Kenneth. Same question style, same phrases. Is one of you imitiating the other?
Anyway, I am not your science nanny. If you find Harde’s paper convincing that’s your problem.
As for you request, see Kenneth’s reply. Take that publication and tear it apart with your endless wisdom, science troll 😉
Hmm, the paragraph before this one is incorrect and tries to “simply explain” something. May I LOL now as well?
@Kenneth:
Didn’t you just learn – a few articles of yours back – that the GHE is also reduced by decreasing cloud cover? Why are you always leaving out that part of the equation? And are you really imagining that clouds get ignored by climate science? I know, I know … you couldn’t find “the exact words” in that paper or any other, right?
Because the net effect of decreasing clouds is a positive SW forcing. I don’t “leave out” clouds’ LW/GHE. The SW aspect of cloud radiative forcing dominates over the LW, just as the SW aspect dominates when cloud cover increases…and produces a net cooling. This has been known for decades.
Estimates of “natural forcing” don’t include cloud radiative forcing as a factor. It’s TSI and volcanism. Just like your linked paper of the forcings since 1890 (so it’s 129 years of 100% human caused warming, right?). Cloud radiative forcing is excluded. How convenient.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cloud-forcing-excluded.jpg
So another epic fail, eh Seb? All you have are insults and trying to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when you don’t understand the mechanisms involved.
LOL
Hook, line, and sinker!
Is “The +6.8 Wm-2 SW forcing” you constantly write a net effect of the cloud cover decrease? Yes or no! Simple question, simple answer … before you go on and on about how you didn’t exactly say something.
For me it sounds like you are using this as the net effect. Which begs the question how the total net effect of clouds existing can be in the 20 W/m² range (according to what you quote sometimes) and a small percentage change of the cover can result in such a large (net) forcing change.
So the answer is yes? You imagine that climate science is ignoring clouds even though you know about cloud cover and it’s influence from climate science?
This really is convenient. The blog experts know it better I guess 😉
Hmm, Gator, you are spike55, aren’t you? The same troll behaviour … I would recognize you anywhere.
Yes, as the SW effect of cloud dominates over the LW effects of clouds, and therefore a reduction in clouds cause warming, and an increase in clouds lead to cooling.
http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
“The decrease in total cloud cover anomaly is approximately 4.5 percent of sky, against the long-term average (all months 1984-2009 inclusive) of 66.4 percent of sky, which means a reduction of 6.8% of the cover.The reduction in total cloud cover is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] , which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.”
“To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1] , section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.”
“Goode and Pallé [5] examined variations in Earth’s albedo from 1984 to 2000 and concluded that the decrease in albedo from the late 1980s to the late 1990s caused additional shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm−2.”
I didn’t write that “climate science is ignoring clouds”. If you actually quoted my exact wording rather than making up your own fake wording and attributing it to me, you’d notice that I wrote:
Estimates of “natural forcing” don’t include cloud radiative forcing as a factor. It’s TSI and volcanism. Just like your linked paper of the forcings since 1890: cloud radiative forcing is excluded. How convenient. https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cloud-forcing-excluded.jpg
“The shortwave and longwave effects of clouds are ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling [to 560 ppm]. The greenhouse effect of clouds may be larger than that resulting from a hundredfold increase of CO2 concentration”
Most normal people understand that there’s a difference between saying “climate science ignores clouds” and “estimates of ‘natural forcing’ don’t include cloud radiative forcing as a factor”. Because you know that the latter statement is true, you had to make up your own wording and dishonestly claim I wrote “climate science ignores clouds”. This is what you do. You just got done writing that “I’ll just fullquote you next time, ok?” – and then you go ahead and make up a fake statement and attribute it to me. That’s why, when we’ve had enough, your comments get deleted.
Ok then, I suspected you would say yes. From now on I will ignore this “claim” of yours as you either have no idea what “net” means or are trolling me on purpose with this “dominates over” terminology (same as the “wiped out” thing a few days ago).
There is no point in arguing against you if you don’t understand that you are missing half of the equation. This is funny because you regularly claim that climate science is missing/ignoring the cloud effect as well.
The rest … seriously, this calling me dishonest for doing what you just did there yourself needs to stop. I know you have your difficulties interpreting written text and seem to view every sentence like it was standing alone and no interpretation would be necessary, but this is getting boring. So what is the difference between those two statements, Kenneth? Please explain! Is it more than just the word count and the words used?
If words matter so much to you, why do you make up the fake statement that I would claim that you actually wrote “climate science ignores clouds”? I wrote something else and the sentence continued after the part you quoted … right?
And with this the discussion is derailed again. Thank you Kenneth. I suspect this reply will never make it …
Psychological projection is not an enviable trait, Seb, so you have my sympathies. You are only mad because I used your own words against you, and it really stung. You looked stupid and you knew it. So you lashed out at me, but you failed utterly and epically in answering the hard questions of climate forcings 101.
Troll away Seb.
Meanwhile at https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/30/why-climate-predictions-are-so-difficult/
An insightful interview with Bjorn Stevens.
Frank Bosse provided this Google translation of an interview published in Der Spiegel -Print-Issue 13/2019, p. 99-101. March 22, 2019
And some cAGW advocate trolls rely utterly on the UN blessed global climate models ‘tea leaves’ as a basis for their special version of climate science.
97% of climate experts do not understand just how large an issue clouds are for modelers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
Best laughs… hand held calculators match super-computer models… 12:28, climate model uncertainty (error bars)… 24:25
“Cloud error is 114 times larger than the variable they are trying to detect”
Dr Patrick Frank has presented his paper to 6 Journals, has had 16 reviewers, 13 of which were modelers. The count is 13 to 3 against publication, all 13 modelers voted against it. All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.
“All 13 critics were incompetent in their reviews, making basic errors in comprehension.” – Gator
So, it’s unanimous. Reality isn’t supported by the models.
Speaking of hand held calculator calculations giving very good answers…
Scroll down to where he begins…
“The third possibility was to carry out our own test, and that was what we did,….”
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/
The whole article is good, and if you can find the movie, it is as well, though somewhat dated.
97% of climate experts do not understand just how large an issue clouds are for modelers.
Indeed Gator it’s massive, that’s why they resort to an ad hoc
f-f-fiddle‘tune’ for particulate parameters to try and get the precipitation results somewhere close to reasonable.They also have big problems with ice. None of the model have managed to give reasonable results for glacier gain/loss. I haven’t found out how they deals with polar ice yet but I’d guess it’s another parameter that’s
f-f-fudged‘tuned’.The ways hardcore climate skeptics argue is really interesting. Of course Yonason and tomOmason had to jump in and cheerlead this ridiculous accusation 😉
A pure troll type reply!
As usual with you troll types when you’ve lost the argument you resort to disparaging the person. cheerlead? What a funny comment 🙂
As usual you’ve assumed people can’t think for themselves, and look-up the evidence for themselves. Being retired I have lots of spare time to fill with doing just that, as well as annoying trolls who profess to have a “mechanism” but have nothing but insults and dull distractions.
You have nothing, can not even counter “that’s why they resort to an ad hoc
f-f-fiddle‘tune’ for particulate parameters to try and get the precipitation results somewhere close to reasonable.” because it’s true.Or as Sicheng He, and Jing Yang said in their paper ‘Fidelity of the Observational/Reanalysis Datasets and Global Climate Models in Representation of Extreme Precipitation in East China’
“Combined gridded observations and JRA-55 capture these two centers, but ERA-Interim, MERRA, and CFSR and almost all CMIP5 models fail to capture them. The percentage of extreme rainfall in the total rainfall amount is generally underestimated by 25%–75% … ”
And I’ll repeat —
As usual with you troll types when you’ve lost the argument you resort to disparaging the person. 🙂
You have no real answer, or is that too in your fantasy about a “mechanism”?
Umm, what exactly are you doing here? I thought you wanted to stop trolling me?
The thing is, whatever you are filling your time with, it is not “thinking for yourself”. You are repeating what you find online in the denial bubble you are caught in. You are annoying people, not trolls. People don’t become trolls when they don’t share your weird oppinions, they become/are trolls when they do what you do …
You are imagining that you have won an argument. I’m fine with that as long as you guys stay in your bubble. So long …
Indeed Gator,
Our troll here insists that he can have the last word in any argument, something he always tries even when when Kenneth has shown everyone how wrong, and empty of logic he is. It happens time and again on this blog, and at each iteration the troll’s comments get more and more vacuous and more personally disparaging.
But that’s low level of entertainment that this particular troll give us.
So in an effort to entertain the troll —
G-A-T-O-R
Gator!
Go Gator, go!
Stick it to the troll ! 🙂
Enjoy SebH 😆
More science free content from the troll.
As it’s said, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and that is something to which Seb baby aspires. But let’s give credit where it’s due, Seb did finally get one thing right, when he stumbled and discovered that one does not get to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when one doesn’t understand the mechanisms involved.
There is hope…
Note to self: it is ok to post science free content and troll other people for the same thing at the same time. Got it, Gator/spike55.
Uh that hurt, Harde fanboy 😉
Thank you for finally agreeing that you guys should aspire to learn about what the things are that you are opposing. Maybe there is indeed hope /sarc
P.S.: As for science … my comment was an accurate observation. Two people cheerleading/applauding you for writing such an insightful comment about what they feel is right and true. And you and tomOmason kind of validate the observation in your replies. Take that for science! The theory of how “skeptics” do their thing is unrefuted 😉
Wow. What a nut job.
I must admit I was wrong. I thought that for a moment Seb baby had noticed the beam in his own eye, but alas his one correct comment was nothing more than a fluke.
Troll away Seb baby. It’s what you do, leave science to the grown ups. Looking stupid is your destiny, and you certainly fulfilled it on this thread. Congrats!
Don’t project onto others, old man. You cover the looking stupid part adequately enough though. Thanks for playing and greetings to spike55, your alter ego.
“Don’t project onto others, old man. You cover the looking stupid part adequately enough though. Thanks for playing and greetings to spike55, your alter ego.”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Not a single original thought in Seb baby’s head.
I have a file of quotes I keep for future reference, some are wise and thoughtful, and some are just damn funny. Seb baby’s quote could have fallen into the wise and thoughtful section. But instead of recognizing the truth in his accidental words, Seb baby accused me of being Spike and Kenneth’s lovechild! LOL
You simply cannot make this stuff up, real lunatics write their own scripts so much better than us lucid types. Thanks Seb baby, you made me laugh, your quote will be shared widely, and of course I will give you full credit.
You are not funny old man. Anyway, good luck. I am now in awe of your vast science knowledge you demonstrated so eloquently.
P.S.: I find it funny that it’s always the hardcore trolls who accuse me of trolling. Do you guys subconsciously feel what you are doing is questionable and somehow project this onto others? Same as the feeling that you are being lied to by everyone and climate scientists in particular? Is that a kind of admission? 😉 /troll-attempt
Your instability is showing Seb, nobody here ever said that we cannot trust climate scientists. (Which voices in your head are you listening too?) I trust many climate scientists, but I still check their work. Is it possible for you to actually have a sane debate, or is your insanity pharma-resistant and all encompassing?
I’ll give you another chance to redeem yourself Seb baby. In fact, if you get this right, you will have been right two days in a row! Woo-hoo!
Let’s try!
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
You claim to hold science in high regard, and that you are not a vacuous anti-human troll. Let’s see if that is true, or if you will simply continue to spout unsupportable claptrap about mechanisms that you do not understand.
Apologies then, I really thought you were like all the other climate “skeptics” … very emotionally involved and trusting their feeling of being betrayed by the elite or something like that. Coupled with some childish insults and trolling this makes it usually impossible to take you guys serious.
So, is it possible to have a sane debate with me? Sure … just do not behave like a clown and I might even play along and try to answer questions. In all other cases this is a waste of time and I rather have fun while reading your ridiculously ironic replies 😉
Sorry, not like this old man. Try to talk like a normal person and I might engage, but since you presented yourself as a clown (similar to spike55), there is no point in discussing anything with you.
Why would a paper exist that refutes that natural variability could be the cause of any global climate change? There are many papers though that attribute the recent global climate change event to human causes rather than to natural variability.
This is a null argument, Gator. Skeptics do this quite often, but it is a logical error to assume this. A causing B in the past doesn’t mean that observing B now was caused by A. If you think that is the case the burden of proof, as you put it, is on you.
Climate science’s claim is that B is caused by human emissions and there is plenty of evidence that this is the case and physical mechanisms backing it up. It’s not just some correlation without causation as many skeptics imagine it to be 😉
With language like this you won’t get sane debates, Gator. Are you really expecting people will respect a persona like the one you are portraying here?
So long, I can already imagine your reply. It will remind me of a broken record and will be full of colorful insulting language, saying something about anti-science without any hint of being about science yourself 😉
So, will you continue to waste everybodies time to the delight of fellow cheerleaders in the comment section of this blog?
But since we have evidence that A caused B both in the past and in the present, then your entire “logical error” falls flat.
The net greenhouse effect influence result of +42 ppm CO2 during 1992-2014 was a flat/slightly negative overall GHE forcing (-0.04 W m-2/yr) according to Song et al., 2016. In contrast, the net result of the solar-modulated reduction in cloud cover (i.e., natural SW cloud radiative forcing) encompassing this period (1984-2000) was +6.8 W m-2, or +4.25 W m-2 per decade. Even if we accept the Feldman et al. (2015) claim that +22 ppm CO2 causes a positive forcing of just +0.2 W m-2/decade, that value is completely overwhelmed by the 21-times-greater natural forcing value.
So, again, saying that there is robust evidence that natural forcing, A, caused both past radiative forcing changes, B, as well as the more recent climate changes, B again, is entirely consistent and logical. Your claim – that it is illogical to conclude that natural forcing could be responsible for the more recent climate changes – is undermined by satellite observational evidence.
So the burden of proof is on you, SebastianH, to demonstrate that natural forcing could not be responsible for the climate changes in the modern era. It doesn’t appear that you are capable of stepping up to the challenge, though, as all you’ve done thus far (in 2.5 years of exchanges here) is dismiss evidence that contradicts your beliefs, call people names and denigrate those who disagree with you, and make up straw man arguments that you can knock down (in your head).
@Kenneth
As you know, but just to be clear.
Actually, “natural variability” isn’t a “cause” of anything. The term is just descriptive of changes whose natural cause(s) are manifest in those changes, but aren’t necessarily known.
What we do know is that, since in the past there were times when [CO2] was high and the temperature plunged, and other times when it was low and the temperature abruptly rose, we cannot implicate [CO2] as a cause of either drastic warming or cooling.
And, based on the work of Salby and others, those claiming that human emissions of CO2 are causative of anything are going way too far out on a limb, given what we know of the lack of correlation of CO2 and temperature in the past, and that the current evidence they have is only circumstantial.
“This is a null argument, Gator. Skeptics do this quite often, but it is a logical error to assume this. A causing B in the past doesn’t mean that observing B now was caused by A. If you think that is the case the burden of proof, as you put it, is on you.”
Oh, so now we know all the drivers? Great!
List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
(Hint: you may be in over your head, you know, belittling Occam’s Razor and ignoring the fact that natural variability still rules the roost)
Good luck!
[…] Scientists Document No Clear Warming Role For CO2 During The Last Deglaciation – Or The Last 10,00… […]
“Hmm, Gator, you are spike55, aren’t you? The same troll behaviour … I would recognize you anywhere.”
Seb baby, don’t you ever tire of constantly being wrong? What kind of stupid accuses a stranger of being an imposter? The big kind of stupid.
But keep working toward that stopped clock goal, because you did get one thing right…
SebastianH 8. April 2019 at 11:56 AM
“Kenneth, you don’t get to “simply explain it” with something incorrect when you don’t understand the mechanisms involved.”
Good luck little buddy!