- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 47,360
- Reaction score
- 26,060
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Do you have a source for “800 year lag”?
An 11% contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is not "meaningless" or insignificant. However, we can always use more atmospheric CO2 given that we are well below 1,000 ppmV, so it is not a bad thing.
Taking into consideration that there is an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2, the increases in CO2 we are seeing today is the result of the Medieval Warming that occurred between 950 AD and 1250 AD. Some time around 2650 AD we will see increases in CO2 as a result of the current Modern Warming that began in 1850 AD.
Either way, we can always use more CO2 in the atmosphere. At least until we exceed 1,000 ppmV.
I think the 800 year lag is well accepted and discussed.Do you have a source for “800 year lag”?
You say "the climate system has no way of knowing where any energy imbalance comes from." I have a minor disagreement in that the spectra of the imbalance matters.I think in that same paragraph, is where Hansen goes completely off the rails in his assumptions,
to something that cannot be supported with the observed data.
"The water vapour feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback (see above), and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W m–2 °C–1, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%. The
surface albedo feedback amplifies the basic response by about 10%, and the cloud feedback does so by 10 to 50% depending on the GCM. Note, however, that because of the inherently nonlinear nature of the response to feedbacks, the final impact on sensitivity is not simply the sum of these responses. The effect of multiple positive feedbacks is that they mutually amplify each other’s impact on climate sensitivity. "
He says that the combined feedbacks result in a ratio of 1 W m-2 per 1°C, this has a very basic flaw, and massively diverges from
greenhouse effect theory. According to NASA, Earth is 33°C warmer than it should be, based on an imbalance of 150 W m-2.
I believe these numbers date back nearly a century, when formulas were first conceived to calculate how warm a body in space
should be, and they realized that Earth was too warm.
Herein lies the main problem, 33°C form 150 W m-2 of imbalance, is a ratio of .22 °C per W m-2.
The climate system has no way of knowing where any energy imbalance comes form, show why should a
future climate treat any new imbalance any different?
If all the imbalance since Earth had an atmosphere has a ratio of .22°C per W m-2, why should the new imbalance (from added CO2)
suddenly have a ratio of 1°C per W m-2?
I think the 800 year lag is well accepted and discussed.
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
"At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years
(600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. "
That 800 years is a percentage of equalization, near 100%. James Hansen in one of his papers claims 80 to 121 years for a 60% equalization. Extrapolated out, 800 years would be in the neighborhood of 95% equailzation.An 11% contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is not "meaningless" or insignificant. However, we can always use more atmospheric CO2 given that we are well below 1,000 ppmV, so it is not a bad thing.
Taking into consideration that there is an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in CO2, the increases in CO2 we are seeing today is the result of the Medieval Warming that occurred between 950 AD and 1250 AD. Some time around 2650 AD we will see increases in CO2 as a result of the current Modern Warming that began in 1850 AD.
Either way, we can always use more CO2 in the atmosphere. At least until we exceed 1,000 ppmV.
I understand their point, but it also includes that they accept that the CO2 level following the temperature increase by 800 years was real!The last paragraph: “So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]”
So the 800 year lag has basically nothing to do with the relatively sudden and excessive warming since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
I understand their point, but it also includes that they accept that the CO2 level following the temperature increase by 800 years was real!
Actually we cannot say how much of the recent warming is natural vs man made, the forcing numbers are all theoretical,The point being that the person who posted it was trying to claim that it was the reason behind the present relatively sudden and excessive global warming. It’s not.
I am well aware that there are other estimates. I certainly wouldn't give Hansen any credibility, he has already proven to be an unreliable alarmist and regularly publishes pure fiction. According to Hansen New York City should have been underwater a decade ago.That 800 years is a percentage of equalization, near 100%. James Hansen in one of his papers claims 80 to 121 years for a 60% equalization. Extrapolated out, 800 years would be in the neighborhood of 95% equailzation.
I would be cautious past 600 ppm in the atmosphere. We still don't know enough yet.
Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, in his works, have concluded by proxy data a center of 1013 years between temperature and CO2 on the ocean temperature to CO2 lag. The coupling works both ways.
I am well aware that there are other estimates. I certainly wouldn't give Hansen any credibility, he has already proven to be an unreliable alarmist and regularly publishes pure fiction. According to Hansen New York City should have been underwater a decade ago.
I am going by the latest study, Caillon et al 2003, which describes a lag of 800 ± 200 years, but I also know that Fischer et al 1999 described a lag of 600 ± 400 years, and Monnin et al 2001 found a delay of 800 ± 600 years, and Mudelsee (2001) described a 1,300 ± 1,000 year lag.
We know several things about CO2. One is that it is harmless to humans until it starts reaching 3% or 30,000 ppmV. We also know that at 417 ppmV plants are on a starvation diet. Plants thrive when CO2 levels are between 1,200 and 1,500 ppmV. However, we are also aware that some plants experience problems when CO2 levels get much beyond 1,800 ppmV. Wheat, for example, became less productive when CO2 levels were kept above 1,800 ppmV.
I can see nothing but benefit from tripling the current CO2 levels. Perhaps you could suggest a few problems that might occur, because I can't see any.
Source:
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
You are right. Hansen is an alarmist and activist. However, he keeps his science accurate as best I can tell.I am well aware that there are other estimates. I certainly wouldn't give Hansen any credibility, he has already proven to be an unreliable alarmist and regularly publishes pure fiction. According to Hansen New York City should have been underwater a decade ago.
I am going by the latest study, Caillon et al 2003, which describes a lag of 800 ± 200 years, but I also know that Fischer et al 1999 described a lag of 600 ± 400 years, and Monnin et al 2001 found a delay of 800 ± 600 years, and Mudelsee (2001) described a 1,300 ± 1,000 year lag.
We know several things about CO2. One is that it is harmless to humans until it starts reaching 3% or 30,000 ppmV. We also know that at 417 ppmV plants are on a starvation diet. Plants thrive when CO2 levels are between 1,200 and 1,500 ppmV. However, we are also aware that some plants experience problems when CO2 levels get much beyond 1,800 ppmV. Wheat, for example, became less productive when CO2 levels were kept above 1,800 ppmV.
I can see nothing but benefit from tripling the current CO2 levels. Perhaps you could suggest a few problems that might occur, because I can't see any.
Source:
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
That would be an interesting study. We know our limit with CO2, but we don't know how CO2 will effect other animals. Since plants are more susceptible to CO2, I would expect them to show adverse reactions to excessive quantities of CO2 first, before the animal life. But that is only a guess on my part. We really have no evidence either way that tells us what levels of CO2 will adversely effect other species.You are right. Hansen is an alarmist and activist. However, he keeps his science accurate as best I can tell.
My biggest concern of CO2 rising isn't us, but other life like birds. They are more sensitive to O2/CO2 ratios.
If you understood the links you cited, they are basically saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that added CO2 will force some warming.Since every highschooler understands the science behind climate change, I can only assume that climate change deniers never graduated highschool, or simply never learned to read.
How about simply viewing what we see with our own eyes, far hotter summers, longer draughts, rising sea levels, extinction of another life.If you understood the links you cited, they are basically saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that added CO2 will force some warming.
The forcing warming from doubling the CO2 level, is about 1.1C, and it will take us about 180 years to complete the first doubling.
We are unlikely to ever get a second doubling to 1120 ppm.
The basis of scientific skepticism for AGW, is not that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but rather CO2's sensitivity is very low,
and the net of the climate feedbacks are near zero (a gain of 1).
The summer highs are not hotter, the sea level rise, is much the same, droughts are not lasting any longer.How about simply viewing what we see with our own eyes, far hotter summers, longer draughts, rising sea levels, extinction of another life.
I have always argued, because of MY age, I won't be around when the worst hits, but my kids and grandkids and future generations will be. I CAN NOT be so selfish as to just think this doesn't affect me, so let the kids worry about it later.
And how about the health effects on seniors, people with respiratory problems, or just every day ordinary people?
Climate Effects on Health | CDC
Climate change, together with other natural and human-made health stressors, influences human health and disease in numerous ways. Some existing health threats will intensify and new health threats will emerge.www.cdc.gov
I am a person who cares about other human beings, so no, I won't stick my head in the sand.
I am well aware that there are other estimates. I certainly wouldn't give Hansen any credibility, he has already proven to be an unreliable alarmist and regularly publishes pure fiction. According to Hansen New York City should have been underwater a decade ago.
I am going by the latest study, Caillon et al 2003, which describes a lag of 800 ± 200 years, but I also know that Fischer et al 1999 described a lag of 600 ± 400 years, and Monnin et al 2001 found a delay of 800 ± 600 years, and Mudelsee (2001) described a 1,300 ± 1,000 year lag.
We know several things about CO2. One is that it is harmless to humans until it starts reaching 3% or 30,000 ppmV. We also know that at 417 ppmV plants are on a starvation diet. Plants thrive when CO2 levels are between 1,200 and 1,500 ppmV. However, we are also aware that some plants experience problems when CO2 levels get much beyond 1,800 ppmV. Wheat, for example, became less productive when CO2 levels were kept above 1,800 ppmV.
I can see nothing but benefit from tripling the current CO2 levels. Perhaps you could suggest a few problems that might occur, because I can't see any.
Source:
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 2003 (free preprint)
I cited numerous sources for scientific evidence, AND I included a link to pseudoscience sites rated by mediabaisfactcheck, how about you provide me with ONE source (a credible one).The summer highs are not hotter, the sea level rise, is much the same, droughts are not lasting any longer.
I too have grandkids, but I am not worried about their future, the stated future problems, are based on flawed predictions.
While temperatures are warming, most of that warming is in winter evenings,
I do not know which part of Canada you are in, but my daughter spent 7 years in Edmonton, and
the lows only getting down to -19C, instead of -20C, are unlikely to disrupt anything.
(Well, they open the subway tunnels to the homeless, when the temps dip below -20C)
If you can get it look up the maximum temperature trend for your area, it might surprise you.
Climate at a glance is not working right today, but I have the lower48 max temps to 2017 summer temps.
There is almost no change since the 1930's.
View attachment 67317396
Your sources are all talking about potential events, IF a combination of things are correct and take place.I cited numerous sources for scientific evidence, AND I included a link to pseudoscience sites rated by mediabaisfactcheck, how about you provide me with ONE source (a credible one).
Well I won't get into a long debate with you on this, I can't even find Woodfortrees on any factchecking side or much history on Paul Clark other than what is on the site itself:Your sources are all talking about potential events, IF a combination of things are correct and take place.
For example many of the more alarming claims will combine a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of 4.5 C (The top of the range),
with the emission scenario RCP8.5. Now RCP8.5 calls for an average CO2 growth of like 12 ppm per year for the next 79 years,
enough to get from 414 ppm to 1370 ppm by 2100. (The average CO2 growth for last two decades has been between 2 and 3 ppm per year.)
I am not even sure it would be possible for us to hit 12 ppm per year.
Concerning a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 4.5 C, it is not possible with the observed data, as it would represent a positive climate feedback
gain of 4.09, which if true, would have heated earth too hot for Humans, before Humans existed.
This is not really rocket science, we have some warming input, and warming output, and we know roughly how much forcing has happened.
The unknown portion of the warming is all that can be attributed to positive feedbacks, and none of the data sets
support anything near 4C, or even 3 C. (The average of the 3 long data sets, comes to a 2XCO2 ecs of 1.67C)
I used Wood For Trees raw data for GISS, Best, and HarCrut4, and a 120 month mean.
Sorry, here is the link for Wood For Trees.Well I won't get into a long debate with you on this, I can't even find Woodfortrees on any factchecking side or much history on Paul Clark other than what is on the site itself:
Paul Clark, a British software developer and practically-oriented environmentalist and conservationist.
I prefer to listen to the scientists.
Quote: However, please remember this is only historical data, and "past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future". Not sure what to make of that, but again, one believes what one wants to believe and prefer to err on the side of caution.
Also from the site: As I said back in 2008, as a life-long Green I think a shift to a efficient and sustainable way of life is a Good Thing in any case
Birds were used in mines, because they were more susceptible than humans of the gasses found in mine. Unless there is reasearch that counters my opinion, I will contend that CO2 is higher levels of CO2 would be harmful to birds. For this reason, I would be wary of allowing CO2 past 600 ppm.That would be an interesting study. We know our limit with CO2, but we don't know how CO2 will effect other animals. Since plants are more susceptible to CO2, I would expect them to show adverse reactions to excessive quantities of CO2 first, before the animal life. But that is only a guess on my part. We really have no evidence either way that tells us what levels of CO2 will adversely effect other species.
I do know that they use high levels of CO2 to kill chickens en mass. They use 80% by volume argon and 20% by volume CO2, which is a common welding gas mix. As I previously mentioned, humans start suffering the effects of CO2 when it reaches 3% according to OSHA. 200,000 ppmV CO2 would also prove fatal to humans as well, and it is not a pleasant death.
Corrected:Since every highschooler understands the science behind climate change, I can only assume that climate change deniers never graduated highschool, or simply never learned to read.
You didn't quote any relevant material for any of them. To me that means you are too lazy to make a valid case, and should be ignored. I refuse to waste my time on information overload, as apparently you are not willing to take the time to convince me.I cited numerous sources for scientific evidence, AND I included a link to pseudoscience sites rated by mediabaisfactcheck, how about you provide me with ONE source (a credible one).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?