Sins Forums
What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in 
I'd like some global warming back...
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-temperatures-co2-climate.html
I guess the last paragraph was written in invisible ink. Lemon juice anyone?
" "What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth's climate out of balance," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen..."
Christ, read more than the tag line when you link something...
Dome C was cored by morons, that article was written by morons. Vostok was twice as dense and had a small fraction of the error, it still showed 600-1000 years of lag. These guys cored an even more dense section, where air wouldn't have escaped for shit, and still found a lag as high as 200.
AGW predicates CO2 driving temperature, not following it by two centuries. If it was two decades it would still be following. Effect before cause.
Sorry, I forgot. You are smarter than everyone else and a better experimentalist as well. Sorry.
That's not lag. It's uncertainty.
If you have a 200 year difference on 100,000 years, then the error is 0,2% which is very small.
So give those people some credit ok and don't be so nitpicky about these things.
Also you should take into account that the data are "raw" and not corrected (completely) for the way the information is buried. I suppose because it's hard to model how gases and such are actually buried...
The same goes for the sediments in the geological records. Once sand, clay is buried, it will still be subject to some physical changes. This means that measurements on sediments can be subject to a biased error. It doesn't have to be a symmetrical Gaussian distribution around the center of the measured value... it could be skewed, or offset because of the lack of knowledge of the physical process of burial.
You can consider the magnitude of this offset an unknown. The offset is subject to uncertainty as well... that's why the 200 year "lag" is insignificant.
Here's another example of the difficulties of measuring ancient temperature:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008PA001650/abstract
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebePQ01.pdf
On a sidenote, here's another example of records of extreme events that happened on short timescales:
This should indicate that the earth has a limited capacity to absorb sudden climate events.
There you go again. I made no 'claim' at all. I've noticed you have a persistent nervous tic - constantly putting words in other people's mouths.
And you telling someone to stop being so 'nitpicky' is pretty funny. This thread should be relocated to Comedy.
Epica got 750,000 years out of an ice core. No one was using it for a CO2 corollary on the last interglacial unless they were a moron. The article was dishonest, equating the extreme inaccuracy of a core I've never even seen anyone bother to reference for such a thing, to the massive lag of several centuries in the denser cores like Vostok.
If you have a 200 year difference on 100,000 years, then the error is 0,2% which is very small.
True, but they don't. They have a 200 year difference ten thousand years back. That would require a 2% error to explain an alternative to an already known mechanic.
Of course you make no claim, but you gave that as an example that current knowledge is (very) flawed. Perhaps you could give another example.
The error is independent of the depth/age, because the physical burial process is a given. So the error will also be 200 years for much older data.
Really psychoak... you have to take measurements and uncertainties for what they are - they are uncertain. You are taking the time lag too seriously.
This is where other information comes in ... understanding of physical processes, and other measurements. Together these constraints form a more complete picture.
In any case, normally you don't adjust a model or go against common sense, just to make a perfect fit to some noisy data - but that's what you're suggesting we should do.
The thing is, physics itself tells us that a greenhouse effect goes in sync with a temperature increase. In modeling, you cannot violate such a relationship, a model simply won't allow for it. This gives us a constraint: according to our knowledge of physical processes, we cannot fit such ice-core data perfectly. As long as you're in the error-margin this is allowed and imho it's more robust than introducing complex processes to accomodate the anomaly or to give up on the problem altogether (like you seem to suggest).
It's not an uncertainty, it's a lag. Everyone but you knows it's a lag. It's accepted science, by the AGW twits themselves.
You don't even have your side of the fence on this. Well, Al Gore is, but he's never really had much of a relationship with the truth...
The people actually drilling and studying the ice cores have known all along that CO2 changes after temperatures.
Here, you guys worship this site. Take them at their word.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=33
It's part of the theory after all. The Milankovitch cycle is this magic on off button in space that jumps the solar output up real fast, spurring a warming trend that becomes self sustaining as it triggers the release of CO2 from the oceans.
The lag is fact. Period. It might even account for some of the actual warming. We'd already be dead by now if it were the primary driver like they pretend it is, but before it reaches such a high saturation rate it should have a marginal but measurable impact on the greenhouse effect when it jumps 50ppm.
Of course, the reality is that the interglacial continues to warm because the ice melts and the Milankovitch cycle isn't an on off switch but a change over thousands of years. But hey who wants to think about solar variance and how massive the albedo change is when there's ice down to Kansas. We'd rather blame it on cars.
And no, it's not even over the entire core. By the third interglacial, the resolution is crap in Vostok, several thousand years. The lag isn't even the same going into the interglacial as it is leaving. CO2 falls thousands of years after the temperature does, despite rising only hundreds after. The oceans take a lot longer to reabsorb than they do to puke it out.
So you can play that lameass lather-rinse-repeat game again? Don't think so.
It isn't. It's not going to be "fact" until you can show the world measurements that are completely free of noise and artifacts.
This can only be done by observing the temperature record first-hand, instead of estimating it from ice cores. We'll have to wait till the shit hits the fan before you are "sure" about it. Maybe you'll even doubt it by then... oh wait people don't live hundreds of years. Well maybe you'll be an exception and you can witness your own extinction first-hand as well.
How can I explain...
Look ... we don't know the burial process. We don't know exactly how the gas bubbles and whatever get locked up in the ice. A layer of 1 year of snow is really thin because the Antarctic is really a desert ... so of course the gas penetrates some distance into the ice and of course there will be a time lag, because gas can only penetrate from above, not from below, it's not a random process.
The question is... what do you do with it. You take it at face value, which is simply wrong. You should take it with the knowledge that the measurements contain uncertainties and because of that, a perfect fit to a model is not possible.
That doesn't mean that we should throw our models overboard. Those models are based on basic physical principles. Those are knowledge as well.
It's the combination (or common sense) that creates a robust result.
You cannot ever, ever produce a robust result if you require that you fit noisy signal perfectly. You have to give the models some slack.
One thing I'm certain of is that the whole climate change debate has reached the "angels on the head of a pin" moment - that is a matter of faith.
Look at this thread! Its monumental!
What unadulterated, uncalled-for, condescending BS. Not even high school, grade school. Maybe pre-school. This is how you argue 'science' - Not.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve
If this looks familiar, it's because you already linked it...
They measured the age of the ice and the age of the air and what do you know, they got a couple hundred years of lag! Funny how it's the same range as the more dependable but shorter range cores from areas that get more snowpack each year and create glacial ice layers in just a few decades, ain't it?
This is how science actually works. Two independent methods of getting a more accurate result come up with comparable answers and they both happen to fit what is known fact about the capacity of water to hold and absorb CO2 at a given temperature and saturation level.
Where the science stops and opinionated political bullshit begins is when they start prevaricating on what it actually means.
Well sure, we've got a guaranteed century plus between the time the surface starts warming rapidly and the time the CO2 levels rise apace....
Yeah, I know, the Milankovitch cycles are a sine wave and not abrupt changes and just happen to follow the trends in and out of ice ages with near perfection...
Okay, so the lag going back into the ice ages is thousands of years and the CO2 doesn't stop us from cooling off even though it supposedly got us that warm to begin with starting with lower solar forcing...
Yes, we know the oceans puke it out faster than they reabsorb it, everyone knows that... It takes a long time for the water in the ocean to cycle all that CO2 off the surface as it's absorbed after all!
I know it all fits, but damnit! We still think the CO2 caused the rest of the warming, because that means we can tell our boss what he wants to hear. He'd cut our funding for not giving him a green light on running a third of the economy between his fingers. Just look at what happened to NASA!
They knew all along that the snowpack was forming solid ice inside the lag times anyway. It's why they never disputed the fact that CO2 lags temperatures in the first place. It's hilariously obvious if you'd bother to think about it. But that is the crux of your problem. You assume that scientists are honest and you simply don't know enough. You ignore the massive numbers of obvious inconsistencies in the little political blurbs put out and take self contradicting articles at their word.
What do they cut through to get to the ice? Years of snow pack that haven't become ice yet. How many? How many years it takes for the conditions to create that solid ice...
Near perfect accuracy to the year on any strata that match the mechanics of the top layers. Because they dug through the process that creates them. Simple logic, no scientific background needed at all. The odd kid that plays in snow might have figured it out just by considering how the consistency of the snow forms different layers depending on how warm it was between snows.
It's the weight of the atmosphere that creates the heat by pressure. Simple calculation. Also the fact that the albedo of venus is 0.9 (total cloud cover) hardly any radiation can be trapped is in itself enough to debunk hothouse effect.
The air is mixed with fresher air before it gets finally trapped in the ice which means that you measure an "average" property of the air ... so of course you get a "lag". "Old" air is really a mixture of different ages of air. The ice crystals on the other hand are solids, they stay in place. So you got "old" ice crystals and relatively "fresh" air. Why don't you use your imagination for a change to try to understand WHAT is measured, instead of insisting on some fictional "lag" which could just as well be an artifact of the burial process... you're really something.
Also, get a clue - the graphs are usually offset but similar. That means, that a temperature decline would have a period of carbon increase and after that a carbon decline. There is no way that you can explain all of that by common physical process. You've to make up some really complex process that can accomplish this, and that in itself is very unlikely.
You can compare this problem to a a medieval religious society, which declared that the earth is the center of the universe and that the planets around us made some really complicated dance. It was really hard to understand and to model. Once it was established that all planets orbited the sun, everything became a lot simpler and clearer.
Perhaps we should send you to Tibet, maybe you can get into contact with Gaia or mother nature, and maybe you can convince her that climate change is all in her imagination too. She is very patient and her head is as hard as rock but so are you ... I wonder who will win the debate.
Science doesn't work that way. Scientists use their common sense and if they see something that doesn't jive with what they know, they'll try to understand it. Either their physical models are completely wrong, but those are the result of many years of fundamental research, so do they really want to invalidate all that research just because their measurements are off? Or they can try to understand their measurements in more details and try to understand if maybe there's something that they've overlooked. Or they can simply say... we don't know and we don't know why... and add an error bar to show their own uncertainties. You don't do any of that. You're just a lazy guy who thinks a few noisy measurements prove his point and doesn't care think about the reason and the consequences of what he's saying.
This is complete and utter bullshit.
The act of pressurizing a gas will indeed heat up a gas. That's because you have to make an effort to pressurize it.
Once the gas is pressurized and left on its own, it will cool down.
It's not my problem that you can't accept reality. Snowpack does not take six thousand years to form solid ice. The lag is scientific fact accepted by both sides of the AGW argument. The lag is not a product of centuries or even millenia of air mixing in snowpack.
Even if it were, they would still get an accurate time table by dating the air. As CO2 levels gradually change over time, the average age of the air and the average CO2 levels would stay in sync.
This is why you should actually look at the data instead of buying into your favorite idiot blogger's description of what's plain as day. They lag in the declining temperatures massively more than they do during the buildup. In those very accurate samples, where they determined that the actual lag in CO2 elevation was only a couple centuries, the decline is still several thousand years. For your idiotic view that CO2 changes have to precede temperature changes, we'd have thousands of years before we'd need to worry about global warming from current CO2 levels.
It makes perfect sense, it's the oceans. The oceans hold over a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere does. Do you really expect them to just warm up all of a sudden when surface temperatures increase and puke out all that CO2 they hold? When it's thrown into reverse, not only does it take the oceans massively longer to cool off compared to the air, it also takes far longer to reabsorb that CO2 than it did to expel it. Expulsion is instantaneous by comparison.
They don't. A running average like that introduces a time lag.
Anyway read something like this.
You're oh so sure about a time lag, but maybe there is none.
I'd be really suprised if a time lag holds up, even if it's only 200 years, and even if it only holds true for the polar regions.
It makes no sense. Oceans mitigate temperature fluctuations, they don't speed them up (at most it'll seem the oceans slow them down, which would require that temperature lags CO2 buildup).
Here's a simple calculation I did, to show that on a geological timescale, human production of CO2 is pretty significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
"The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes)."
We humans produce about 10 gigatonnes of C every year, or about 30 Gigatonnes of CO2 every year.
So every year we add about 1% more CO2 into the atmosphere than was present.
On geological timescales, where changes are usually measured on timescales of thousands or even millions of years, this 1% / year is an extreme amount.
I don't think any of you "deniers" appreciate this enough.
If a typical geological timescale is 1000 years then our geologically relevant influence is about 1000%.
Perhaps that'll put things in better perspective for you.
One of your 'credible' scientists?
Robert Kernodle
Strange, usually internet debates about things like global warming remain civilized and conclude productively with one side convincing the other of their stance.
I'm baffled as to why that isn't happening this time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
"The layer of porous firn on Antarctic ice sheets is 50–150 m deep"
Also, one year is compressed into a layer of less than 1 cm thick.
How the hell are you going to get perfect data from that, huh? There's a lot of potential for noise and even biased noise.
So BEFORE you start shouting that CO2 lags T, you should be very, very, very sure that those ice cores are actually reliable in this respect.
Can they REALLY give you a reliable resolution of 100 years ??
But you people think it's meaningful...
Really...
Those data are not suited for to distinguish which is first. It is only suited for average, longer-term trends of thousands of years... in other words, they are perfectly suited for analysis of events geological timescales.
They don't scale down well to our level... we're doing things much faster than that.
But also my apologies for getting frustrated... it's impossible for me to show you the difference between human timescales and geological timescales. The icecore data are good enough for modeling on geological timescales, I think 200 years of lag hardly matter if you're looking at processes that takes 10,000 years or longer. For those purposes, ice-core data are suited because the aging uncertainty simply doesn't matter. For making conclusions on human time scales... that's a completely different matter, then you are going to be very sensitive to the details of the burial process and imho I don't think the data are suited for that.
As far as the age of the gases is concerned: if you mix gases of different age, then you'll end up with a gas of an average age - so even determining the age of a gas isn't straightforward. The bias will probably be toward a younger age.
Anyway read something like this.
You're oh so sure about a time lag, but maybe there is none.
I'd be really suprised if a time lag holds up, even if it's only 200 years, and even if it only holds true for the polar regions.
Now that's digging deep to continue the fantasy. These are guys rejecting the idiotic AGW theory and giving reasons why the ice cores would simply be off in their CO2 records, results of artifacts.
Alas, nothing here helps you any. This was done before they got clever and started dating the actual air a few years back. They date it by measuring the relative quantities of isotopes. This does indeed lead to an accurate dating method compared to the ice. Any corruption by conditions as it was formed would alter the age of both ice and air, not just one. Any mixing of air simply mixes the CO2 at the same rate it mixes the age. The relative change in CO2 over time would trend from year to year, just as it would if it were the same age as the ice. The isotope levels and the CO2 content would both be contaminated equally, making the dating just as reliable as if there were no mixing.
Exactly. It makes no sense. Why? Because CO2 does dick and you're convinced it's the whole shebang. It's a byproduct of the temperature change, not the cause. The oceans slow down temperature changes because they take so much longer to change themselves. This is why CO2 lags, because it had fuck all to do with the actual temperature increase or decrease in the first place, and is simply a result of the oceans changing their capacity to hold CO2.
Also, one year is compressed into a layer of less than 1 cm thick.
Yes, it takes a long time. It's how they got Vostok down to a date range of 200-1000 for an actual CO2 lag when they started dating the air. It's why the people taking Epica as a good source for recent temperatures are fucking morons for picking the slowest building ice on the planet. It's the oldest record, and the least accurate. The actual snowfall isn't as bad as you make it sound though, that 1cm thick ice starts out as average precipitation of ~16cm, which is quite a bit more than 16cm in snow. A meter only takes a few years to build, not hundreds. As it compresses, much of it evaporates off, leaving you with a fraction of the original ice before it solidifies.
The extreme age gap typically isn't a product of the conversion to ice in the first place. They got several thousand years of an age gap in Vostok because of the depth. At the extreme end of the time scale, the resolution goes to absolute crap. The depth of the ice results in immense pressure creating loads of little micro fractures in the ice, and over hundreds of thousands of years, that's a lot of time for the air to mix between the high pressure bubbles they connect up. A couple hundred thousand years up the core, there was nothing like that and the resolution steadily increased.
So BEFORE you start shouting that CO2 lags T, you should be very, very, very sure that those ice cores are actually reliable in this respect.
Can they REALLY give you a reliable resolution of 100 years ??
But you people think it's meaningful...
The ice core temperature records are peer reviewed science. They're the foundation of AGW. The hard science that says look, CO2 and temperature rise and fall together! They don't say what AGW says they say, but they're the foundation none the less. It's not me you have to convince.
Can they give resolution of 100 years? Not for much of it. Why would they need to though? It takes thousands of years to go in and out of an interglacial. We're looking at the trend lines over millennia, not year to year fluctuations. If it went up one year and down the next, that would be completely non-existent in the record. Fortunately, no one gives a shit. Whether a believe or a skeptic, fluctuations are irrelevant.
Edit: I spent almost an hour editing the insults out of a post yesterday. I wouldn't worry that much about the tone of the posts.
Someone who knows what he's talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen
He's saying something about the Keystone Pipeline: "He claims by opening the Keystone XL spigot, it would be game over for the climate."
Why would he say such a thing...
I think because the Athabasca tar sands hold 2 trillion barrels of reserves, 178 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. 10 barrels is about 1 tonne so we're talking about 18 billion tonnes here. It's very dirty fuel, he suggested that there's as much waste as one recovers, so that means about 40 billion tonnes of Carbon (=about 120 billion tonnes of CO2). If prices rise, and if more of the reserves are mined, then this could easily double, or triple, or more. If everything were mined, it would mean 400 billion tonnes of C, or 1200 billion tonnes of CO2. Which is about 30% of the current total atmospheric CO2 (3,000 billion tonnes). I suppose we humans are resourceful enough to mine all of that within 100 years... because we are an awesome species.
Well... reading this reminds me of something else... the Netherlands have pretty large reserves of coal, except... we cannot reach it. I've read about plans for gasification of the coal into CO. Something like this I suppose:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8184
It will unlock vast reserves of coal that we cannot reach at the moment ... but it will introduce a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. It seems like Pakistan is going for its own vast coal reserves this way.
It's cheap, it's available, it's ... energy !
Pff... we won't have to worry about energy for a while at least.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Elemental Forums
JoeUser Forums
WinCustomize Forums