2017 Co2 watch thread--How high will it go?

[flacaltenn]

Wrong Paddie.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

• Jeremy D. Shakun
• Peter U. Clark
• Feng He
• Shaun A. Marcott
• Alan C. Mix
• Zhengyu Liu
• Bette Otto-Bliesner
• Andreas Schmittner
• Edouard Bard

• Affiliations
• Contributions
• Corresponding author

Nature

484,

49–54

(05 April 2012)

doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received

16 September 2011
Accepted

01 February 2012
Published online

04 April 2012
Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information•
• Comments

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

That paper is just making a distinction that Temperature led CO2 in the Southern Hemi, But lagged in the Northern hemi. So NATURALLY, the ice cores that SHOW a complete record are in the Southern Hemi and that is INCONVENIENT for the warmers. So they devise a series of proxies that show the 1000 YEARS of warming delay between southern and northern hemi.

To me -- this is probably likely to be a component of Milankovich axis changes and is pretty irrelevant.

Are we to believe the laws of Physics are DIFFERENT in the different in the hemispheres? NO !!! it's a matter of heat transport and thermodynamics and the FORCING FUNCTION -- which was Earth orbital dynamics.

 

[flacaltenn]

Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.

By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????

 

[ding]

There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.

They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..

Yeah the Flintstones were a very smart dynasty, to bad they died out using to much fossil fuel.

.

And you actually think that qualifies as an intelligent reply. Lordy, lordy.

Do you believe that CO2 prevented an ice age from happening?

Now how could that happen if the ice age is thousands of years in the future by the Milankovic Cycles? You truly don't read very well, do you, Dingleberry. No, what the GHGs did was to start a very rapid rise in temperature, one that will continue for quite a while. We are committed, in the coming decades and centuries to several meters of sea level rise, and a worldwide rise in temperatures that will give us a climate that the naked ape has never experianced before.

Dude, too late. You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age. This is what you wrote:

Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age, slowly, as in tens of thousands of years. However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.

By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

Look and learn

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude, too late. You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age. This is what you wrote:

Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age, slowly, as in tens of thousands of years. However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate.

Yep, same amount of brain power as Comrade Frankie boi.

 

[ding]

Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.

By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

Look and learn

He did. His argument was convincing. You did not make one.

 

[ding]

Dude, too late. You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age. This is what you wrote:

Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age, slowly, as in tens of thousands of years. However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate.

Yep, same amount of brain power as Comrade Frankie boi.

Sorry, but you have just admitted that an interglacial is better than a glacial.

 

[flacaltenn]

Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.

By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

Look and learn

VERY GOOD man.. You seem to following along. So now which parameter is TWEAKED by Milankovitch Cycles?

CO2 ---------------------- OR ----------------------- Temperature ??? Clock is ticking. Need a final answer..

 

[flacaltenn]

All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores. Because they CAN cloud the issue by attempting a "GLOBAL" proxy reconstruction that is subject to 1000s of years of thermodynamic delays. They say so RIGHT IN THE PAPER.. But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism for a "big thaw" BEGINNING in any one place with sudden unexplainable releases of CO2 from a frozen planet.

If it was my "theory" -- I'd go examine the possible sources of CO2 release from frozen land and water and examine the tropics (maybe). But barring that -- it's just another useless "GLOBAL" attempt at proxy reconstruction using sparse data. .

 

[ScienceRocks]

January 01: 406.35 ppm

 

[ScienceRocks]

January 07: 406.09 ppm
January 06: 405.98 ppm

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere, they report, were rising only at about .5 parts per billion per year in the early 2000s. But in the past two years, they’ve spiked by 12.5 parts per billion in 2014 and 9.9 parts per billion in 2015. With carbon dioxide rising more slowly, that means that a higher fraction of the global warming that we see will be the result of methane, at least in the next decade or so.

“Methane in the atmosphere was almost flat from about 2000 through 2006. Beginning 2007, it started upward, but in the last two years, it spiked,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who co-wrote the study.

NOAA.
The paper’s first author was Marielle Saunois, a researcher at the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement. Saunois and Jackson are part of a larger team of researchers with the Global Carbon Project, which tracks the flows of this element across the planet (carbon is a component of both carbon dioxide and methane), and publishes a global methane budget every two years.
The latest budget is here.

Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

And when one looks at the levels over the Arctic, you see real trouble coming down the line.

759
Shares
Alex Kirby


The quantity of methane leaking from the frozen soil during the long Arctic winters is probably much greater than climate models estimate, scientists have found.

They say at least half of annual methane emissions occur in the cold months from September to May, and that drier, upland tundra can emit more methane than wetlands.

The multinational team, led by San Diego State University (SDSU) in the US and including colleagues from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Sheffield and the Open University in the UK, have published their conclusion, which challenges critical assumptions in current global climate models, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is about 25 times more powerful per molecule than carbon dioxide over a century, but more than 84 times over 20 years. The methane in the Arctic tundra comes primarily from organic matter trapped in soil which thaws seasonally and is decomposed by microbes.

It seeps naturally from the soil over the course of the year, but climate change can warm the soil enough to release more methane from organic matter that is currently stable in the permafrost.

Arctic methane emissions 'greater' than previous estimates | Climate Home - climate change news

And that does not consider what the clathrates are doing as the Arctic Ocean warms.

 

[ding]

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere, they report, were rising only at about .5 parts per billion per year in the early 2000s. But in the past two years, they’ve spiked by 12.5 parts per billion in 2014 and 9.9 parts per billion in 2015. With carbon dioxide rising more slowly, that means that a higher fraction of the global warming that we see will be the result of methane, at least in the next decade or so.

“Methane in the atmosphere was almost flat from about 2000 through 2006. Beginning 2007, it started upward, but in the last two years, it spiked,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who co-wrote the study.

NOAA.
The paper’s first author was Marielle Saunois, a researcher at the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement. Saunois and Jackson are part of a larger team of researchers with the Global Carbon Project, which tracks the flows of this element across the planet (carbon is a component of both carbon dioxide and methane), and publishes a global methane budget every two years.
The latest budget is here.

Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

And when one looks at the levels over the Arctic, you see real trouble coming down the line.

759
Shares
Alex Kirby


The quantity of methane leaking from the frozen soil during the long Arctic winters is probably much greater than climate models estimate, scientists have found.

They say at least half of annual methane emissions occur in the cold months from September to May, and that drier, upland tundra can emit more methane than wetlands.

The multinational team, led by San Diego State University (SDSU) in the US and including colleagues from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Sheffield and the Open University in the UK, have published their conclusion, which challenges critical assumptions in current global climate models, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is about 25 times more powerful per molecule than carbon dioxide over a century, but more than 84 times over 20 years. The methane in the Arctic tundra comes primarily from organic matter trapped in soil which thaws seasonally and is decomposed by microbes.

It seeps naturally from the soil over the course of the year, but climate change can warm the soil enough to release more methane from organic matter that is currently stable in the permafrost.

Arctic methane emissions 'greater' than previous estimates | Climate Home - climate change news

And that does not consider what the clathrates are doing as the Arctic Ocean warms.

Dang... look at that slope from 1984 to 1992.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, look at that slope. About the same as present. Would be much better were that slope in the opposite direction.



The Arctic is leaking methane 200 times faster than usual: Massive release of gas is creating giant holes and 'trembling tundras'

• Russian scientists have measured the gas emitted by the mysterious bubbles on Belyy Island in the Kara Sea
• The 'trembling tundra' also contains concentrations of carbon dioxide 20 times higher than usual levels
• Add to mysterious behaviour in the vast region, including the sudden appearance of giant holes in northern Siberia

By Will Stewart for MailOnline

PUBLISHED: 11:49 EST, 22 July 2016 | UPDATED: 15:32 EST, 22 July 2016

• 
  Strange bubbles have been discovered in the Arctic permafrost - adding to mysterious behaviour seen in the region, including the sudden appearance of giant holes in northern Siberia.

Now Russian scientists have revealed the bubbles in the wobbly Earth are are leaking methane gas some 200 times above the norm in the atmosphere.

The 'trembling tundra' also contains concentrations of carbon dioxide 20 times higher than usual levels.

Scroll down for video

Read more: The Arctic is leaking methane 200 times faster than usual | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[mamooth]

All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores.

Because they CAN cloud the issue by attempting a "GLOBAL" proxy reconstruction that is subject to 1000s of years of thermodynamic delays. They say so RIGHT IN THE PAPER..

If you can't discuss the science, invoke the magical invisible conspiracy.

But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism for a "big thaw" BEGINNING in any one place with sudden unexplainable releases of CO2 from a frozen planet.

So, you didn't read the paper. That seems obvious, being how the paper has a whole section devoted to what you said the paper didn't talk about.

If it was my "theory" -- I'd go examine the possible sources of CO2 release from frozen land and water and examine the tropics (maybe). But barring that -- it's just another useless "GLOBAL" attempt at proxy reconstruction using sparse data. .

From the paper that you didn't read ...

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
---
An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3C of global warming before
the initial increase in CO2, 17.5 kyr ago. This finding suggests that CO2 was not the cause of initial warming
---

That is, an initial bump up in temperature released CO2, and then the CO2 took over as primary driver. What caused the initial bump is discussed more in the "The trigger for deglacial warming" section.

 

[flacaltenn]

All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores.

Because they CAN cloud the issue by attempting a "GLOBAL" proxy reconstruction that is subject to 1000s of years of thermodynamic delays. They say so RIGHT IN THE PAPER..

If you can't discuss the science, invoke the magical invisible conspiracy.

But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism for a "big thaw" BEGINNING in any one place with sudden unexplainable releases of CO2 from a frozen planet.

So, you didn't read the paper. That seems obvious, being how the paper has a whole section devoted to what you said the paper didn't talk about.

If it was my "theory" -- I'd go examine the possible sources of CO2 release from frozen land and water and examine the tropics (maybe). But barring that -- it's just another useless "GLOBAL" attempt at proxy reconstruction using sparse data. .

From the paper that you didn't read ...

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
---
An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3C of global warming before
the initial increase in CO2, 17.5 kyr ago. This finding suggests that CO2 was not the cause of initial warming
---

That is, an initial bump up in temperature released CO2, and then the CO2 took over as primary driver. What caused the initial bump is discussed more in the "The trigger for deglacial warming" section.

That's what I SAID moron.. But it wasn't 0.3degC --- no proxy is gonna determine the temperature trigger to that accuracy even at just ONE proxy location...

 

[Kosh]

Another failed thread by the AGW cult:

Figure 9. CO2 calculated from Moberg temperatures (dark blue curve), Law Dome ice cores (magenta curve) and plant stomata (green, light blue and purple squares).

A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking

 

[mamooth]

Kosh, what was the point of posting some random old fudge from a WUWT kook? We already know they fudge everything.

 

[mamooth]

That's what I SAID moron..

Where? I only saw you claiming the opposite.

"But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism". That's you saying the opposite of what you're now claiming you said.

But it wasn't 0.3degC --- no proxy is gonna determine the temperature trigger to that accuracy even at just ONE proxy location...

Move those goalposts!

Now instead of "They didn't do it at all!", you've shifted do, "Well, they did do it, but they couldn't have had the resolution to do it, so it must be faked!".

And you back it up with your usual "Because I say so!".

 

[flacaltenn]

That's what I SAID moron..

Where? I only saw you claiming the opposite.

"But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism". That's you saying the opposite of what you're now claiming you said.

But it wasn't 0.3degC --- no proxy is gonna determine the temperature trigger to that accuracy even at just ONE proxy location...

Move those goalposts!

Now instead of "They didn't do it at all!", you've shifted do, "Well, they did do it, but they couldn't have had the resolution to do it, so it must be faked!".

And you back it up with your usual "Because I say so!".

I'm not following your rant. You're not following your rant. Why don't we call it quits.. Every I wrote, you haven't touched.. Not wasting my time with your angry self.. Don't think you're ABLE to defend that "Global proxy study" that produced CO2 leading temperature "globally" out of the last ice age.. That's the discussion here. Not me..