Drop in Carbon Dioxide Levels Led to Polar Ice Sheet, Study Finds

[westwall]

Using the past as a template for the future is only valid, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Given that humans put out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, I believe the underlying conditions HAVE changed.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then how do you explain the 800 year lag from the warming to the concurrent rise in CO2?

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then how do you explain the 800 year lag from the warming to the concurrent rise in CO2?

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

There is a very elegant lecture on John Tyndall in the videos that the AGU made available for the public from this years meeting. A real geologist lecturing on real science. I suggest all that would really understand how GHGs work see that lecture.

Sessions On Demand | AGU Fall Meeting 2011

Of course, this is just top scientists in their fields in the world speaking, and we all know that internet posters are so much smarter than they are.

 

[code1211]

Could you explain how that's true, when all indications are that it's both leading AND lagging? Early CO2 raises temps, which warms the oceans and the tundra leading to the release of more CO2. You can't hang your hat on just half the story, that's intellectual dishonesty.

Since the isthmus of panama closed, the Ice Ages have cycled. That's just the way it is.

In every Ice Age and Interglacial, the rhythms have followed the Milankovitch Cycles more or less and the effect of CO2 far from being a cause has been a an effect. The temperature always tops out at about the same level and always bottoms out at about the same level.

If the Feed back loop you predict were actual and if it had any real strength, we would have continued to warm during the interglacials of the past and avoided the recurring ice Ages of the past. What you predict is in variance to the history that can be easily checked.

Why do you predict something that has not happened in the real world? Why not, instead, check the history and predict something that is actually possible?

Using the past as a template for the future is only valid, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Given that humans put out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, I believe the underlying conditions HAVE changed.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2 in the world.

The contribution of CO2 by mankind to the overall contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is about 3 to 4% and is actually within the margin of error for tracking the increase of CO2 to the air.

By citing this stat in the way that you do, you mislead.

 

[code1211]

Then how do you explain the 800 year lag from the warming to the concurrent rise in CO2?

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

One of the sources of increased CO2 emission is from frozen areas that are thawing. The Siberian Tundra is loosing areas of land permanently gripped in permafrost and that thawing is real easing previously sequestered CO2.

The emissions of CO2 from the thawing of ground in Siberia is greater than the emissions of the combined industry of the united States.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since the isthmus of panama closed, the Ice Ages have cycled. That's just the way it is.

In every Ice Age and Interglacial, the rhythms have followed the Milankovitch Cycles more or less and the effect of CO2 far from being a cause has been a an effect. The temperature always tops out at about the same level and always bottoms out at about the same level.

If the Feed back loop you predict were actual and if it had any real strength, we would have continued to warm during the interglacials of the past and avoided the recurring ice Ages of the past. What you predict is in variance to the history that can be easily checked.

Why do you predict something that has not happened in the real world? Why not, instead, check the history and predict something that is actually possible?

Using the past as a template for the future is only valid, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Given that humans put out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, I believe the underlying conditions HAVE changed.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2 in the world.

The contribution of CO2 by mankind to the overall contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is about 3 to 4% and is actually within the margin of error for tracking the increase of CO2 to the air.

By citing this stat in the way that you do, you mislead.

Very good, Code. I appreciate the skill in lying without actually saying an untruth.

Very simply, we have added an additional 40% CO2 to the atmosphere, raising the level fromn 280 to 390+ ppm. We have added 1100 ppt of CH4, raising that from 700 ppt to over 1800 ppt.

We fully know how much CO2 we are adding each year. The math is pretty simple. One only account for all the fossil fuels that are sold in a form that will be burned. And there are monitors in hundreds, if not thousands, of places around the world monitoring the GHGs on a daily basis.

I hope your masters pay you well for the lies you tell. You are skilled and intelligent enough to realize that they are lies. For the amoral, money is money.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

The table and the graph show annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates for Mauna Loa. In the graph, also decadal averages of the growth rate are plotted, as horizontal lines for 1960 through 1969, 1970 through 1979, and so on.

year ppm/yr
1959 0.94
1960 0.54
1961 0.95
1962 0.64
1963 0.71
1964 0.28
1965 1.02
1966 1.24
1967 0.74
1968 1.03
1969 1.31
1970 1.06
1971 0.85
1972 1.69
1973 1.21
1974 0.77
1975 1.13
1976 0.84
1977 2.10
1978 1.30
1979 1.75
1980 1.73
1981 1.43
1982 0.96
1983 2.13
1984 1.36
1985 1.25
1986 1.48
1987 2.29
1988 2.13
1989 1.32
1990 1.19
1991 0.99
1992 0.48
1993 1.40
1994 1.91
1995 1.99
1996 1.25
1997 1.91
1998 2.93
1999 0.93
2000 1.62
2001 1.58
2002 2.53
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.52
2006 1.76
2007 2.20
2008 1.62
2009 1.88
2010 2.41


The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year. If used as an average for the globe, it would represent the sum of all CO2 added to, and removed from, the atmosphere during the year by human activities and by natural processes. There is a small amount of month-to-month variability in the CO2 concentration that may be caused by anomalies of the winds or weather systems arriving at Mauna Loa. This variability would not be representative of the underlying trend for the northern hemisphere which Mauna Loa is intended to represent. Therefore, we finalize our estimate for the annual mean growth rate of the previous year in March, by using the average of the most recent November-February months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1. Our estimate for the annual mean growth rate (based on the Mauna Loa data) is obtained by subtracting the same four-month average centered on the previous January 1. Preliminary values for the previous year are calculated in January and in February.

The estimated uncertainty in the Mauna Loa annual mean growth rate is 0.11 ppm/yr. This estimate is based on the standard deviation of the differences between monthly mean values measured independently by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and by NOAA/ESRL. The estimated uncertainty in the Mauna Loa annual mean growth rate is 0.11 ppm/yr. This estimate is based on the standard deviation of the differences between monthly mean values measured independently by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and by NOAA/ESRL. The annual growth rate measured at Mauna is not the same as the global growth rate, but it is quite similar. One standard deviation of the annual differences MLO minus global is 0.26 ppm/year.

 

[westwall]

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

One of the sources of increased CO2 emission is from frozen areas that are thawing. The Siberian Tundra is loosing areas of land permanently gripped in permafrost and that thawing is real easing previously sequestered CO2.

The emissions of CO2 from the thawing of ground in Siberia is greater than the emissions of the combined industry of the united States.

That too is correct. Just like the methane released from the termite mounds in Africa is greater than the clathrate releases the alarmists are getting their panties in a bunch over.

 

[westwall]

Using the past as a template for the future is only valid, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Given that humans put out more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, I believe the underlying conditions HAVE changed.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volcanoes are not a major source of CO2 in the world.

The contribution of CO2 by mankind to the overall contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is about 3 to 4% and is actually within the margin of error for tracking the increase of CO2 to the air.

By citing this stat in the way that you do, you mislead.

Very good, Code. I appreciate the skill in lying without actually saying an untruth.

Very simply, we have added an additional 40% CO2 to the atmosphere, raising the level fromn 280 to 390+ ppm. We have added 1100 ppt of CH4, raising that from 700 ppt to over 1800 ppt.

We fully know how much CO2 we are adding each year. The math is pretty simple. One only account for all the fossil fuels that are sold in a form that will be burned. And there are monitors in hundreds, if not thousands, of places around the world monitoring the GHGs on a daily basis.

I hope your masters pay you well for the lies you tell. You are skilled and intelligent enough to realize that they are lies. For the amoral, money is money.

No, we havn't. 96% of that increase is due to NATURAL causes. Mankind contributes a mere 4% of the annual CO2 budget of the planet.

 

[konradv]

Then how do you explain the 800 year lag from the warming to the concurrent rise in CO2?

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

How convenient you have conjured up some "deus ex machina" that causes heat to create CO2!!! However, correlation isn't causation and you haven't explained what happens to the absorbed energy you say "has no impact on the temperature of the planet". Why should we ignore that facet of standard scientific theory in favor of some magical time-transport theory? Settle the Conservation of Energy question and then we can consider others.

 

[westwall]

If there was an 800 year lag, how can it be 'concurrent'? If you meant "current rise", I'd deny any connection between the two instances, the former being a natural fluctuation and the latter due to man. BTW, you are confirming the correlation of CO2 and heat, right?

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

How convenient you have conjured up some "deus ex machina" that causes heat to create CO2!!! However, correlation isn't causation and you haven't explained what happens to the absorbed energy you say "has no impact on the temperature of the planet". Why should we ignore that facet of standard scientific theory in favor of some magical time-transport theory? Settle the Conservation of Energy question and then we can consider others.

"Correlation does not equal causation" coming from YOU is a hoot! Your whole meme is exactly that! Pot, meet kettle!

What "deus ex machina" have I created? The Vostock ice core data very clearly shows the correlation between warming and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels. Nor is there any credible evidence that energy is trapped by CO2. Trenberth has made the ridiculous assertion that heat can be trapped withing the icy cold depths of the oceans. Please view the graph below. where exactly is that heat going to be trapped?

Where is the invisble insulated bubble that can sequester that heat and keep it safe from all that cold cold water down there? What physical Law allows such a clearly impossible thing to occur? Please do tell.

 

[konradv]

Yes. There is a very definite correlation between heat and a rise in CO2. CO2 levels INCREASE as a RESULT of warming. There is a lag time of between 400 and 800 years for the CO2 levels to increase after warming has occured.

Why? I don't know. Perhaps the warmth allows the CO2 to escape from solution in the oceans. Perhaps the warmth allows more critters to survive with a concurrent rise in the CO2 they produce.

Who knows for sure. The one thing we DO know for sure is CO2 has no impact on the temperature of the planet. If it did, it would lead the warming instead of following by hundreds of years.

As a point of English, I use concurrent because in the geologic time scale an 800 year time lag is nothing.

How convenient you have conjured up some "deus ex machina" that causes heat to create CO2!!! However, correlation isn't causation and you haven't explained what happens to the absorbed energy you say "has no impact on the temperature of the planet". Why should we ignore that facet of standard scientific theory in favor of some magical time-transport theory? Settle the Conservation of Energy question and then we can consider others.

"Correlation does not equal causation" coming from YOU is a hoot! Your whole meme is exactly that! Pot, meet kettle!

What "deus ex machina" have I created? The Vostock ice core data very clearly shows the correlation between warming and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels. Nor is there any credible evidence that energy is trapped by CO2. Trenberth has made the ridiculous assertion that heat can be trapped withing the icy cold depths of the oceans. Please view the graph below. where exactly is that heat going to be trapped?

Where is the invisble insulated bubble that can sequester that heat and keep it safe from all that cold cold water down there? What physical Law allows such a clearly impossible thing to occur? Please do tell.

Whatever the cores tell you about subsequent rises, I'm concerned about a rise in the present. What happens to extra IR trapped? I'm going to keep asking the question, as long as you keep trying to distract us with irrelevancies. I find it telling that you always want to discuss the past or hundreds of years in the future, but refuse to answer a simple Conservation Of Energy question. Why would that be , if your theories are correct?

 

[westwall]

How convenient you have conjured up some "deus ex machina" that causes heat to create CO2!!! However, correlation isn't causation and you haven't explained what happens to the absorbed energy you say "has no impact on the temperature of the planet". Why should we ignore that facet of standard scientific theory in favor of some magical time-transport theory? Settle the Conservation of Energy question and then we can consider others.

"Correlation does not equal causation" coming from YOU is a hoot! Your whole meme is exactly that! Pot, meet kettle!

What "deus ex machina" have I created? The Vostock ice core data very clearly shows the correlation between warming and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels. Nor is there any credible evidence that energy is trapped by CO2. Trenberth has made the ridiculous assertion that heat can be trapped withing the icy cold depths of the oceans. Please view the graph below. where exactly is that heat going to be trapped?

Where is the invisble insulated bubble that can sequester that heat and keep it safe from all that cold cold water down there? What physical Law allows such a clearly impossible thing to occur? Please do tell.

Whatever the cores tell you about subsequent rises, I'm concerned about a rise in the present. What happens to extra IR trapped? I'm going to keep asking the question, as long as you keep trying to distract us with irrelevancies. I find it telling that you always want to discuss the past or hundreds of years in the future, but refuse to answer a simple Conservation Of Energy question. Why would that be , if your theories are correct?

What the cores tell us is the rise in CO2 we are experiencing now is DUE to the rise in temperatures that began most recently 800 years ago (well that's my theory anyway), the cores also tell us that CO2 has no effect on temperatures which means that CO2 can't trap IR (which if you did some very basic research you would know) and finally I can't answer your question vis a vis the 2nd Law, because you fundamentally don't understand what it says. Your interpretation is 180 degrees from what the Law actually says.

 

[konradv]

What the cores tell us is the rise in CO2 we are experiencing now is DUE to the rise in temperatures that began most recently 800 years ago (well that's my theory anyway), the cores also tell us that CO2 has no effect on temperatures which means that CO2 can't trap IR (which if you did some very basic research you would know) and finally I can't answer your question vis a vis the 2nd Law, because you fundamentally don't understand what it says. Your interpretation is 180 degrees from what the Law actually says.

Showing that CO2 "traps" energy is a trivial expt., easily done by anyone with a spectrophotometer. Maybe "traps" isn't the proper scientific wording, but the fact that you latched on to it, when you know the word is used colloquially all the time and you're well aware of what's meant by it, only shows me you know your arguments are failures. If, as you say, this "trapped" energy has no effect on temps, what happens to it? Knock it off about the 2nd Law, if you don't even come to terms with the 1st!!!

 

[westwall]

What the cores tell us is the rise in CO2 we are experiencing now is DUE to the rise in temperatures that began most recently 800 years ago (well that's my theory anyway), the cores also tell us that CO2 has no effect on temperatures which means that CO2 can't trap IR (which if you did some very basic research you would know) and finally I can't answer your question vis a vis the 2nd Law, because you fundamentally don't understand what it says. Your interpretation is 180 degrees from what the Law actually says.

Showing that CO2 "traps" energy is a trivial expt., easily done by anyone with a spectrophotometer. Maybe "traps" isn't the proper scientific wording, but the fact that you latched on to it, when you know the word is used colloquially all the time and you're well aware of what's meant by it, only shows me you know your arguments are failures. If, as you say, this "trapped" energy has no effect on temps, what happens to it? Knock it off about the 2nd Law, if you don't even come to terms with the 1st!!!

No, it's not. the "experiments" that you love to link to show nothing of the sort. What they do show however is an excellent example of the Ideal Gas Laws at work. Go to a university, talk to a physicist and a chemist. Show them your little experiments and ask them what they mean.

 

[konradv]

What the cores tell us is the rise in CO2 we are experiencing now is DUE to the rise in temperatures that began most recently 800 years ago (well that's my theory anyway), the cores also tell us that CO2 has no effect on temperatures which means that CO2 can't trap IR (which if you did some very basic research you would know) and finally I can't answer your question vis a vis the 2nd Law, because you fundamentally don't understand what it says. Your interpretation is 180 degrees from what the Law actually says.

Showing that CO2 "traps" energy is a trivial expt., easily done by anyone with a spectrophotometer. Maybe "traps" isn't the proper scientific wording, but the fact that you latched on to it, when you know the word is used colloquially all the time and you're well aware of what's meant by it, only shows me you know your arguments are failures. If, as you say, this "trapped" energy has no effect on temps, what happens to it? Knock it off about the 2nd Law, if you don't even come to terms with the 1st!!!

No, it's not. the "experiments" that you love to link to show nothing of the sort. What they do show however is an excellent example of the Ideal Gas Laws at work. Go to a university, talk to a physicist and a chemist. Show them your little experiments and ask them what they mean.

Now it's "Ideal Gas Laws"? Do you have a grabbag of irrelevant distractions?!?! What about the 1st Law? What about Conservation of Energy? Point out my "ignorance" all you want, but anyone with a critical eye realizes YOU NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS. You just divert the discussion to your pet theories. I'm not going to play anymore. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.