Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 Lags About 2,000 Years Behind on Temperature Changes



Page 1 of 3123>
CO2 Lags About 2,000 Years Behind on Temperature Changes13-07-2016 16:36
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
What still fascinates me how anyone can be so ignorant to claim that CO2 causes climate change?

The data from the ice cores show the following facts:

1) The temperature highs and lows are running average about 2,000 years ahead of CO2. The conclusion any (smart) scientist would draw is that CO2 is a function of temperature. What do you need to twist this around? A very complicated feed forward mechanism that is called the Greenhouse effect.

2) When CO2 is high, dust concentrations are low, and vice versa.

Stupid answers are already given enough by climate worshippers. Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?
15-07-2016 16:43
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
No one? Where are the experts now?
Edited on 15-07-2016 16:45
16-07-2016 18:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Buildreps wrote:
No one? Where are the experts now?


the lack of moderation and trolls have made this board unpleasant I suspect you find another board to troll this forum is dead.
16-07-2016 18:56
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
A forum called 'Climate Debate' is not even able to solve one of the most fundamental questions? Is that serious?
16-07-2016 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
spot wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
No one? Where are the experts now?


the lack of moderation and trolls have made this board unpleasant I suspect you find another board to troll this forum is dead.


It's not dead. There are just very few climate worshipers like you left here.

This particular observation is in keeping with the known properties of carbon dioxide. There is nothing to challenge it, other than dogma from the Religion.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2016 21:12
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?


Oh, me, me!

What about the simple explanation that CO2 isn't the only historical cause for climate change? When other events, such as Milankovitch Cycles, tectonic movement and volcanic activity, cause change climate, CO2 winds up being a feedback effect due to release/absorption from pole caps. When CO2 doesn't lag but instead matches with climate change, it's because it is the cause. We're seeing a match between increasing temperature and CO2 today, probably because CO2 is the cause.

Intelligent enough for you? Probably too much, actually.

Edited on 18-07-2016 21:13
20-07-2016 12:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?


Oh, me, me!

What about the simple explanation that CO2 isn't the only historical cause for climate change? When other events, such as Milankovitch Cycles, tectonic movement and volcanic activity, cause change climate, CO2 winds up being a feedback effect due to release/absorption from pole caps. When CO2 doesn't lag but instead matches with climate change, it's because it is the cause. We're seeing a match between increasing temperature and CO2 today, probably because CO2 is the cause.

Intelligent enough for you? Probably too much, actually.


Yes, to a point.

Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?
20-07-2016 18:47
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?


Because it's not? And the warming period is much longer than 1979-1998.

CO2 is only attributed as the primary trigger and driver of climate change. Other forcers and feedback sources contribute to the increase as well, such as water vapor, methane, aerosols and a decrease in albedo from melting poles, but CO2 is the main culprit, based both on relative strength (levels in the atmosphere plus effect) as well as the matter that the other sources rely on the initial temperature increases caused by CO2.

As to why CO2 is the primary trigger, it's because the other prior causes are not happening, nor are they capable of causing severe and constant increases in temperatures. Volcano output today is relatively constant over the long-term, as is Sun activity/Milankovitch cycles. Plate tectonics move too slowly and require severe change in the organization of land and oceans on our planet (for example, the splitting of Western Europe from North America creating the North Atlantic in the paleogene).

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?


Of course. There's always a chance. There's a chance CO2 could cause temperatures to drop more than 2*C in 80 years. It's extremely unlikely, but there's a chance.

If you mean is there a reasonable chance, though, absolutely.

As to why, historical records of effects of CO2 on climate, basic physics and lots of crunching of data, including computer models.

That said, if there isn't a 2*C increase by 2100 and CO2 levels don't taper off, we will almost certainly hit a 2*C increase by 2200.
20-07-2016 20:37
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Leafsdude wrote:
Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?


Oh, me, me!

What about the simple explanation that CO2 isn't the only historical cause for climate change? When other events, such as Milankovitch Cycles, tectonic movement and volcanic activity, cause change climate, CO2 winds up being a feedback effect due to release/absorption from pole caps. When CO2 doesn't lag but instead matches with climate change, it's because it is the cause. We're seeing a match between increasing temperature and CO2 today, probably because CO2 is the cause.

Intelligent enough for you? Probably too much, actually.


Of course matches CO2 temperature variations, because CO2 is tightly connected as the effect. You didn't explain the mismatch between cause and effect of about 2,000 to 2,500 years. I won't expect you are able regarding your way of thinking.
Edited on 20-07-2016 20:38
20-07-2016 21:23
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
When CO2 is a feedback (effect), it lags behind. When it is a forcer (cause), it doesn't lag.

CO2 increase vs temperature variation is not lagging over the last 200 years. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is CO2 increase is the cause.

Of course, CO2 is also a positive feedback (effect) as well as a forcer. This is the "runaway" or "tipping point" effect that you hear talked about: at some point, even if CO2 release from human sources cease complete, the release of CO2 from positive feedback will keep increasing atmospheric levels. Right now most indications is we haven't hit that point and we're not sure when we will, but it definitely is a mathematically sound theory. The effect the lag will cause has been estimated as far as its potential effect on climate change via the mathematics its based on, in fact.

It's actually pretty simple when you think about it.

And I missed the fact that the topic is wrong. CO2 lags about 200-1000 years historically on average. It does not lag 2000+ years.

In the end, this entire argument here is a reverse post hoc fallacy (because before, therefore now). Just because something was a cause before doesn't mean that's the cause now, nor vice versa.
Edited on 20-07-2016 21:32
21-07-2016 19:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Heroic effort to talk sense Leafsdude but you will discover that this forum is taken over by people whose relationship with what is commonly accepted as observed reality is the same relationship that nutcases who think the Magna Carter gives them the right to ride a bicycle on the outside lane on the M6 have with traffic regulations.
21-07-2016 21:14
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Leafsdude wrote:
When CO2 is a feedback (effect), it lags behind. When it is a forcer (cause), it doesn't lag.

CO2 increase vs temperature variation is not lagging over the last 200 years. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is CO2 increase is the cause.

Of course, CO2 is also a positive feedback (effect) as well as a forcer. This is the "runaway" or "tipping point" effect that you hear talked about: at some point, even if CO2 release from human sources cease complete, the release of CO2 from positive feedback will keep increasing atmospheric levels. Right now most indications is we haven't hit that point and we're not sure when we will, but it definitely is a mathematically sound theory. The effect the lag will cause has been estimated as far as its potential effect on climate change via the mathematics its based on, in fact.

It's actually pretty simple when you think about it.

And I missed the fact that the topic is wrong. CO2 lags about 200-1000 years historically on average. It does not lag 2000+ years.

In the end, this entire argument here is a reverse post hoc fallacy (because before, therefore now). Just because something was a cause before doesn't mean that's the cause now, nor vice versa.


Interesting the points you are attempting to make. I don't know what your occupation is, but it doesn't seem scientific. I am certain about the claim that CO2 lags about 2,000 years behind on temperature. When CO2 would be the cause it, ipso facto, cannot lag behind - it must be ahead of temperature. But it doesn't.

Again, when you want to held CO2 responsible for climate change, you must create a nonsensical forward feedback loop. Do you get that?

I almost fell off my chair when I read the reply:
- "When CO2 is a feedback (effect), it lags behind." This is the case.
- "When it is a forcer (cause), it doesn't lag." This is not the case.
- "CO2 lags about 200-1000 years historically on average." So you admit it lags behind? How do you want to make CO2 responsible for climate change?

This was no intelligent reply. You might want to try again.
Edited on 21-07-2016 21:16
22-07-2016 10:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?


Because it's not? And the warming period is much longer than 1979-1998.

CO2 is only attributed as the primary trigger and driver of climate change. Other forcers and feedback sources contribute to the increase as well, such as water vapor, methane, aerosols and a decrease in albedo from melting poles, but CO2 is the main culprit, based both on relative strength (levels in the atmosphere plus effect) as well as the matter that the other sources rely on the initial temperature increases caused by CO2.

As to why CO2 is the primary trigger, it's because the other prior causes are not happening, nor are they capable of causing severe and constant increases in temperatures. Volcano output today is relatively constant over the long-term, as is Sun activity/Milankovitch cycles. Plate tectonics move too slowly and require severe change in the organization of land and oceans on our planet (for example, the splitting of Western Europe from North America creating the North Atlantic in the paleogene).

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?


Of course. There's always a chance. There's a chance CO2 could cause temperatures to drop more than 2*C in 80 years. It's extremely unlikely, but there's a chance.

If you mean is there a reasonable chance, though, absolutely.

As to why, historical records of effects of CO2 on climate, basic physics and lots of crunching of data, including computer models.

That said, if there isn't a 2*C increase by 2100 and CO2 levels don't taper off, we will almost certainly hit a 2*C increase by 2200.


Ok, I think I have your position;

CO2 drives climate and it will cause warming. That warming is likely to be less than the top half of the IPCC's IR4 predictions based on the lack of such warming since they were made. New data improving the models etc.

If that's wrong please say so.

I don't exactly agree, I think there are lots of decent counter arguments that actually put the effect of CO2 below this but....

Since you agree that the level of warming is well below any dangerous thresh-hold then the subject can be regarded as of accademic interest for at least the next 50 years and we can go about our business with no need to cause the vast economic danage with it's massive death rate that would, and indeed is now, the result of trying to avoid using the best fuel availible.
24-07-2016 22:56
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Ok, I think I have your position;

CO2 drives climate and it will cause warming. That warming is likely to be less than the top half of the IPCC's IR4 predictions based on the lack of such warming since they were made. New data improving the models etc.


CO2 does not drive climate, but it can create significant effects on it.

And I don't make any claims as to how much warming will happen, whether based on IPCC estimates or otherwise. I don't have enough working knowledge to do so. As such, I tentatively accept the statements presented in peer-reviewed research as long as it is not superceded by more reputable research. My statement in the quote you responded to was simply a hypothetical, not necessarily my views on the likelihood of any prediction.

I don't exactly agree, I think there are lots of decent counter arguments that actually put the effect of CO2 below this but....


I'd be interested to hear them.

Since you agree that the level of warming is well below any dangerous thresh-hold then the subject can be regarded as of accademic interest for at least the next 50 years and we can go about our business with no need to cause the vast economic danage with it's massive death rate that would, and indeed is now, the result of trying to avoid using the best fuel availible.


Since I've amended your statement on my position, I'll refrain from responding to this until you can read and correct it accordingly (if at all).
Edited on 24-07-2016 22:57
25-07-2016 11:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Ok, I think I have your position;

CO2 drives climate and it will cause warming. That warming is likely to be less than the top half of the IPCC's IR4 predictions based on the lack of such warming since they were made. New data improving the models etc.


CO2 does not drive climate, but it can create significant effects on it.

And I don't make any claims as to how much warming will happen, whether based on IPCC estimates or otherwise. I don't have enough working knowledge to do so. As such, I tentatively accept the statements presented in peer-reviewed research as long as it is not superceded by more reputable research. My statement in the quote you responded to was simply a hypothetical, not necessarily my views on the likelihood of any prediction.


Politicain's none answer. The above has no meaning other than to dodge the issue.

If your not capable of coming to an opinion about the degree of threat posed by CAGW then why would anybody do as you command an change the whole economy of the planet?


I don't exactly agree, I think there are lots of decent counter arguments that actually put the effect of CO2 below this but....


I'd be interested to hear them.


There are other poeple who understand the science of it much better than me and such a discussion is just a distraction from the much more important subject of what should be done about GW, if anything.

Since you agree that the level of warming is well below any dangerous thresh-hold then the subject can be regarded as of accademic interest for at least the next 50 years and we can go about our business with no need to cause the vast economic danage with it's massive death rate that would, and indeed is now, the result of trying to avoid using the best fuel availible.


Since I've amended your statement on my position, I'll refrain from responding to this until you can read and correct it accordingly (if at all).


Since you have dodged the issue this discussion cannot move forward untill you say what level of wwarming you think is likely and what level is a poroblem.
25-07-2016 15:15
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Politicain's none answer. The above has no meaning other than to dodge the issue.

If your not capable of coming to an opinion about the degree of threat posed by CAGW then why would anybody do as you command an change the whole economy of the planet?


You keep making assumptions as to what I want/believe.

Perhaps ask me what I want/believe before you do that?

Since you have dodged the issue this discussion cannot move forward untill you say what level of wwarming you think is likely and what level is a poroblem.


Anything at or over 4*C is a problem. We've already risen 1*C and are unlikely to be able to curb it to beyond another 2*C over the next 100 years.
25-07-2016 17:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Politicain's none answer. The above has no meaning other than to dodge the issue.

If your not capable of coming to an opinion about the degree of threat posed by CAGW then why would anybody do as you command an change the whole economy of the planet?


You keep making assumptions as to what I want/believe.

Perhaps ask me what I want/believe before you do that?

Since you have dodged the issue this discussion cannot move forward untill you say what level of wwarming you think is likely and what level is a poroblem.


Anything at or over 4*C is a problem. We've already risen 1*C and are unlikely to be able to curb it to beyond another 2*C over the next 100 years.


Ah, he makes a statement!

1, What is it that makes you think that there will be such a rise (beyond 2c) over the next century? I ask given the lack of such warming for the last 18 years.

If you can identify any warming over that period it is so low that the trend is for less than 1c. A lot less. That's even with the massive amount of CO2 we have put into the air. Much more than was expected.

2, What trouble do you think will happen?
25-07-2016 18:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Just at work but can't help logging on and making a quick post, there has been warming over the past 18 years 6 of the seven warmest years on record are within the last 18 and also years this year looks like will be a record breaker so we are seeing warming. I really don't understand how you can say no warming for 18 years.
25-07-2016 18:43
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
What is it that makes you think that there will be such a rise (beyond 2c) over the next century? I ask given the lack of such warming for the last 18 years.


1) There has been such warming over the last 18 years. The estimate for warming over that period is about 0.4*C. *shrug*

2) Papers like this and this are the reason why I accept that the likelihood is a minimum 1.6-2*C of warming over the next 100 years with a higher range of 4-7*C. Worth noting, though, that these are based on assumptions of little-to-no human curbing of CO2 output. If we do curb CO2 output, it's not unreasonable to expect less than 1*C of warming by 2100.

If you can identify any warming over that period it is so low that the trend is for less than 1c. A lot less. That's even with the massive amount of CO2 we have put into the air. Much more than was expected.


1*C of warming over 20 years would be beyond scary. As I noted elsewhere, it took about 100 years (from the late 1800s to the late 90s) to warm 1*C. Even if the high-end of the warming projection happens by 2100, a highly unlikely probability even in scientific circles, that's still only about a degree of warming every 14 years. At the low-end of 1.6*C, that's a degree warming over about every 60 years.

Edit: Reading your quote again, I'm suddenly wondering if you mean that the trend over the last 18 years would translate to less than 1 degree of warming over 100 years. As I noted in point 1) above, warming is estimated at about 0.4*C over the last 18 years. On a linear trend, that's near exactly 2*C over 100 years, and a linear trend is not necessarily the most reasonable expectation.

2, What trouble do you think will happen?


Trouble that we're already seeing. Ocean acidification, coastal erosion, strengthening thunderstorms and hurricanes/cyclones, more intense droughts and flooding spells, shifting of hardiness zones, release of methane and other more potent greenhouse gases from melting ice caps. It's not going to be pretty.
Edited on 25-07-2016 18:46
25-07-2016 19:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
What is it that makes you think that there will be such a rise (beyond 2c) over the next century? I ask given the lack of such warming for the last 18 years.


1) There has been such warming over the last 18 years. The estimate for warming over that period is about 0.4*C. *shrug*


Really???? That would be well and truely greater than the instrumentation error range and would have been more than expected by the IPCC. Given that there has been a pause according to all the temperature records I have seen where do you get you numbers?

2) Papers like this and this are the reason why I accept that the likelihood is a minimum 1.6-2*C of warming over the next 100 years with a higher range of 4-7*C. Worth noting, though, that these are based on assumptions of little-to-no human curbing of CO2 output. If we do curb CO2 output, it's not unreasonable to expect less than 1*C of warming by 2100.


Well 7c is far higher than I have ever been quoted before. It's F.ing drivel as well. How much increase in the energy budget would you expect that to need? The IPCC and the Royal society have a climate sensitivity of about 4.2 Watts/square meter for a doubling of CO2.


If you can identify any warming over that period it is so low that the trend is for less than 1c. A lot less. That's even with the massive amount of CO2 we have put into the air. Much more than was expected.


1*C of warming over 20 years would be beyond scary. As I noted elsewhere, it took about 100 years (from the late 1800s to the late 90s) to warm 1*C. Even if the high-end of the warming projection happens by 2100, a highly unlikely probability even in scientific circles, that's still only about a degree of warming every 14 years. At the low-end of 1.6*C, that's a degree warming over about every 60 years.


Sorry error 1c over 100 years.

Edit: Reading your quote again, I'm suddenly wondering if you mean that the trend over the last 18 years would translate to less than 1 degree of warming over 100 years. As I noted in point 1) above, warming is estimated at about 0.4*C over the last 18 years. On a linear trend, that's near exactly 2*C over 100 years, and a linear trend is not necessarily the most reasonable expectation.


Again, where are you getting your numbers. Try wood for trees graphs.


2, What trouble do you think will happen?


Trouble that we're already seeing. Ocean acidification,


No significant change at all so far and the oceans have coped with lots higher CO2 levels in the past.

coastal erosion,


That would be nothing at all to do with sea level rise because the waves will hit some level of the shore whatever. And of course if it's happening now the sea level has not risen yet (not that it ever will).

strengthening thunderstorms and hurricanes/cyclones,


Not happening yet. No evidence from warmer periods of such.

more intense droughts and flooding spells, shifting of hardiness zones, release of methane and other more potent greenhouse gases from melting ice caps. It's not going to be pretty.


It's not going to happen either but then given your inability to think critically in relation to the climate inside a greenhouse I don't ever expect to convince you that water is wet without a scientific paper on it.
25-07-2016 21:01
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
To be precise, the odds that CO2 would drive the climate are 1 to 746,496. Only a fool would bet his last penny on that. The world must be full of fools...
25-07-2016 23:09
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Really???? That would be well and truely greater than the instrumentation error range and would have been more than expected by the IPCC. Given that there has been a pause according to all the temperature records I have seen where do you get you numbers?


1) What does the "instrumentation error range" have to do with anything?

2) Where did the IPCC say anything about expected warming from 1998 through today?

3) My numbers come from the data provided by the temperature records known as GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH and NOAA. Though I will correct to a point that 0.4*C is the hard number rise. The 5-year running average over the 18 years in question is closer to 0.25*C, which, if linear (again, it's not reasonable to expect warming to be linear), still results in over 1*C of warming over the next 100 years.

Well 7c is far higher than I have ever been quoted before.


Mea culpa. I read an article that was converting from Celsius to Fahrenheit incorrectly. 7*F would be about 4*C. My bad.

Again, where are you getting your numbers. Try wood for trees graphs.


I'd rather source the original scientific papers, as I have done above, thanks.

No significant change at all so far


This source says otherwise:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596240/

and the oceans have coped with lots higher CO2 levels in the past.


Which, again, completely misunderstands the problem of current climate change, which is speed, not levels.

That would be nothing at all to do with sea level rise because the waves will hit some level of the shore whatever.


Can you restate this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

And of course if it's happening now the sea level has not risen yet (not that it ever will).


Once again, the scientific literature completely disagrees:

Several previous analyses of tide gauge records--employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the geometry of long-term sea-level change--have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year*... Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010**


* - That's about 160-190mm over the period in question
** - That's about 54mm over the period in question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25629092

Not happening yet.


Once again, the scientific literature disagrees. There have been noted significant intensifying trends from papers like this and this.

It's not going to happen either


Yet I'm the religious one?

but then given your inability to think critically in relation to the climate inside a greenhouse I don't ever expect to convince you that water is wet without a scientific paper on it.


Why shouldn't I expect a scientific paper to be convinced of scientific claims?

No evidence from warmer periods of such.


I'll agree with that, but the theory that it will happen (and the fact that we're seeing strong indications of it as per my above source) is sound.

To be precise, the odds that CO2 would drive the climate are 1 to 746,496. Only a fool would bet his last penny on that. The world must be full of fools...


Source of those "odds"?
Edited on 25-07-2016 23:14
26-07-2016 02:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Leafsdude wrote:

3) My numbers come from the data provided by the temperature records known as GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH and NOAA. Though I will correct to a point that 0.4*C is the hard number rise. The 5-year running average over the 18 years in question is closer to 0.25*C, which, if linear (again, it's not reasonable to expect warming to be linear), still results in over 1*C of warming over the next 100 years..


NONE of these systems is capable of measuring a global temperature. The problem is one of statistics being misused. Satellites are not magickal. They are instruments like any other. They need to be calibrated like any other. Kinda hard to do that when they are up there and we are down here.

A satellite only covers a moving spot on the Earth. It does not measure global temperature.

All the thermometers on the Earth combined would still not produce an accurate enough statistical average to determine the season, much less the global temperature. And THAT's assuming they are placed uniformly (they aren't).

And of course if it's happening now the sea level has not risen yet (not that it ever will).

Leafsdude wrote:
Once again, the scientific literature completely disagrees:

Several previous analyses of tide gauge records--employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the geometry of long-term sea-level change--have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year*... Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010**


* - That's about 160-190mm over the period in question
** - That's about 54mm over the period in question.


It is not possible to measure sea level to anywhere near this accuracy. Tidal stations are mounted on continents that move and shift constantly, raising some and sinking others.

Satellite measurements use a ground station for reference, but that ground station too is mounted on a moving, shifting continent. To compensate they reference themselves to mean sea level, the thing they are measuring!

Using your own measurement as your reference is stupid.


The Parrot Killer
26-07-2016 10:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Really???? That would be well and truely greater than the instrumentation error range and would have been more than expected by the IPCC. Given that there has been a pause according to all the temperature records I have seen where do you get you numbers?


1) What does the "instrumentation error range" have to do with anything?

2) Where did the IPCC say anything about expected warming from 1998 through today?

3) My numbers come from the data provided by the temperature records known as GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH and NOAA. Though I will correct to a point that 0.4*C is the hard number rise. The 5-year running average over the 18 years in question is closer to 0.25*C, which, if linear (again, it's not reasonable to expect warming to be linear), still results in over 1*C of warming over the next 100 years.


Well, I have looked at the graphs and don't see it can you be more specific as to which HARDCURT data set you are using. I just get variations on;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1998

Well 7c is far higher than I have ever been quoted before.


Mea culpa. I read an article that was converting from Celsius to Fahrenheit incorrectly. 7*F would be about 4*C. My bad.


And your huge desire to find frightening numbers.

Again, where are you getting your numbers. Try wood for trees graphs.


I'd rather source the original scientific papers, as I have done above, thanks.


I go to the data when I can. Even better than the papers surely. They, evven when in Nature can talk bollocks.

No significant change at all so far


This source says otherwise:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596240/

and the oceans have coped with lots higher CO2 levels in the past.


Which, again, completely misunderstands the problem of current climate change, which is speed, not levels.


You will be very unset to hear that I don't think that corral which has a life span of a season will be unable to cope with a chenge of 2c over 100 years. Although that rate of change is physically impossible, the heat cannot be got into the ocens quick enough to do that. I have the same view on the possible acidification of the oceans as it wil be a very slow slight change that they have seen many times before.


That would be nothing at all to do with sea level rise because the waves will hit some level of the shore whatever.


Can you restate this? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.


I did physical geography in school. I have basic understanding of how wave errosion works. I understand that sea cliffs are a product of it and beaches are a product of the deposition by the waves. The cliffs will be attacked slightly higher, which will slow the errosion rate, not as much material to pick up and throw against the cliff, and the beach will grow upwards as the sea rises. (Although it's not going to happen).


And of course if it's happening now the sea level has not risen yet (not that it ever will).


Once again, the scientific literature completely disagrees:

Several previous analyses of tide gauge records--employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the geometry of long-term sea-level change--have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year*... Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010**


* - That's about 160-190mm over the period in question
** - That's about 54mm over the period in question.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25629092


17 x 0.7mm normally equalls 12mm. Or 70mm over 100 years.

I know that climate psudo-science uses different maths to the rest of us and maybe that's the source of the confusion but generally it's slightly harder to spot the lie.

Not happening yet.


Once again, the scientific literature disagrees. There have been noted significant intensifying trends from papers like this and this.


70mm might. Will you notice? I might just but only because I would know what to look for.

Knowing what to look for tells me that the sea level has often changed on most coast lines. It also tells me that tidal records made for shipping navigation purposes were not done to the same accuracy of modern ones and the 4 times a year that the harbour master looked out at the stormy night and recorded the tide height from the office will make a 20mm change to the overall average quite easily.


It's not going to happen either


Yet I'm the religious one?


Numerate. It's different.

but then given your inability to think critically in relation to the climate inside a greenhouse I don't ever expect to convince you that water is wet without a scientific paper on it.


Why shouldn't I expect a scientific paper to be convinced of scientific claims?


Because the bleeding obvious does not get into journals. How would I manage to convince you that water is wet?????????? Just please explain how I would have to go about it and I will change my approach to you.


No evidence from warmer periods of such.


I'll agree with that, but the theory that it will happen (and the fact that we're seeing strong indications of it as per my above source) is sound.


How do you know that the unproven hypothesis which cannot hind cast at all well and has failed to accurately predict anything at all is at all sound???

Oh, yes; faith.
26-07-2016 17:41
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Guys, despite all the words back and forth, no one solved the problem of the CO2 lagging behind. Or is it? Without all the bullshit words. Try me to explain how CO2 (keep the lagging in mind!) could make the climate to change?
26-07-2016 17:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
assuming for one second you have any interest in anything that people will say to you check this out, asking on random internet forums is a bad way to get information anyway.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

perhaps that can help.
26-07-2016 18:07
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
spot wrote:
assuming for one second you have any interest in anything that people will say to you check this out, asking on random internet forums is a bad way to get information anyway.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

perhaps that can help.


Thanks for the link. It's a bullshit theory. They simply ignore the 97.5% of the other data, and they drag all possible bullshit on the scene to make their hypothesis seem logic. But it's a complete failing logic.

Scientists who believe in CO2 caused warming are similar as Abrahamists. They are believers who will do anything to make their ideas logic. Thanks anyway for the attempt.

Who's next?
26-07-2016 18:14
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Well, I have looked at the graphs and don't see it can you be more specific as to which HARDCURT data set you are using. I just get variations on;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1998


Here's the graph of those 5 sources from actual scientific papers:



And your huge desire to find frightening numbers.


You're such a dick.

But it would make sense that you would find weakness in admitting mistakes and correcting errors. I doubt you'd ever do the same. Because, despite your transference, you're the one with the absolute, "religious", as you call it, belief. I accept everything tentatively and recognize both my own, others and science's limitations. If you could provide me reputable evidence that climate change was a sham, I'd accept that. You have not, therefore I don't accept your claims.

You will be very unset to hear that I don't think that corral which has a life span of a season will be unable to cope with a chenge of 2c over 100 years.


Well, that's a relief. An amateur skeptic does not think something that goes against his viewpoint will happen.

Sadly, experts in the field say differently, and actually use evidence and reasoning to defend their claims, instead of just assertions. I think I'll listen to them over you. No offense.

Although that rate of change is physically impossible, the heat cannot be got into the ocens quick enough to do that.


Source?

I have the same view on the possible acidification of the oceans as it wil be a very slow slight change that they have seen many times before.


Once again, I don't care what your view is. I want to know why you hold that view. As in, what evidence and knowledge do you use to defend that belief. And more importantly, why should I accept that evidence, if you have any?

I did physical geography in school. I have basic understanding of how wave errosion works. I understand that sea cliffs are a product of it and beaches are a product of the deposition by the waves. The cliffs will be attacked slightly higher, which will slow the errosion rate, not as much material to pick up and throw against the cliff, and the beach will grow upwards as the sea rises. (Although it's not going to happen).


Cool. The people who do this stuff for a living have much more than a basic understanding of it. To think you know more than them because you took a class in school is nothing but arrogance.

So, once again, I'll listen to others who provide evidence over a false authority on the subject.

17 x 0.7mm normally equalls 12mm. Or 70mm over 100 years.

I know that climate psudo-science uses different maths to the rest of us and maybe that's the source of the confusion but generally it's slightly harder to spot the lie.

70mm might. Will you notice? I might just but only because I would know what to look for.


Uhhh...

Read it again...I'll wait for you to find your errors yourself this time. See if you are able or not.

I'll post the relevant part again for you to look at:

Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010


Knowing what to look for tells me that the sea level has often changed on most coast lines. It also tells me that tidal records made for shipping navigation purposes were not done to the same accuracy of modern ones and the 4 times a year that the harbour master looked out at the stormy night and recorded the tide height from the office will make a 20mm change to the overall average quite easily.


How do you know what to look for?

And that was in response to intensifying hurricanes, not tidal heights. So you clearly didn't even check the links.

Guys, despite all the words back and forth, no one solved the problem of the CO2 lagging behind. Or is it? Without all the bullshit words. Try me to explain how CO2 (keep the lagging in mind!) could make the climate to change?


I already did. Temperature lags CO2 when CO2 is a feedback (effect) of warming as opposed to a forcer (cause). CO2 is not lagging behind modern warming, therefore the most reasonable claim is that CO2 is probably causing the warming.

Feel free to point out the bullshit words, though...
Edited on 26-07-2016 18:20
26-07-2016 18:29
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
No matter how smart you try to sound, if you ignore almost 98% of the data which claims something else - you have a bullshit theory. You can be right for a few percent, no matter how smart your mechanisms may sound, they are still bullshit.

If you haven't found the cause of the feedback you're wandering in the dark...
26-07-2016 18:38
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
What data is being ignored?

And what do you mean by "cause of feedback"?
Edited on 26-07-2016 18:38
26-07-2016 18:47
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
The other 780,000 years. The cause of the feedback mechanism from which CO2 is an effect lies for this last 20,000 years in the 100,000 before that.

Ignoring of all the data is the perfect basis for a bullshit theory.
26-07-2016 18:56
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The other 780,000 years.


They aren't ignored. The difference in the cause of warming for those 780 000 years and today is explained.

The cause of the feedback mechanism from which CO2 is an effect lies for this last 20,000 years in the 100,000 before that.


Well, that's simple. Added CO2 to the atmosphere causes a rise in temperature which results in ice-caps that contain trapped greenhouse gas molecules to melt and release that gas which causes more melting and more released gas until the loop levels out due to either no more trapped gases or a leveling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ignoring of all the data is the perfect basis for a bullshit theory.


Mmm, not really, since scientists would be all over such a simple failure.

As it is, most of the data is reasonably explained in climate science while still resulting in a singular conclusion of human-caused global warming via CO2 increases.
Edited on 26-07-2016 18:57
26-07-2016 18:58
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
What was the cause of the ice ages then?
26-07-2016 19:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Buildreps wrote:
What was the cause of the ice ages then?


A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.

That's not my own work but it seems to answer the question.
26-07-2016 19:49
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Pretty much. Milankovitch cycles are the most widely accepted culprits of the Quaternary ice ages...

Though the term "ice age" is a rather lose one, and generally not used in scientific circles. For the most part, the word is generally used to define a combined glacial/interglacial period, though it is sometimes used to refer only to glacial periods. Therefore, we're at least arguably in an ice age right now.

I would assume Buildreps means to say glacial period, hence why I'm replying to the usage of the term in that context.
Edited on 26-07-2016 19:51
26-07-2016 20:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Leafsdude wrote:
Pretty much. Milankovitch cycles are the most widely accepted culprits of the Quaternary ice ages...

Though the term "ice age" is a rather lose one, and generally not used in scientific circles. For the most part, the word is generally used to define a combined glacial/interglacial period, though it is sometimes used to refer only to glacial periods. Therefore, we're at least arguably in an ice age right now.

I would assume Buildreps means to say glacial period, hence why I'm replying to the usage of the term in that context.


The worrying thing is that it was only a small change which triggered those dramatic changes. I don't think that just taking into account the CO2 we are releasing will tell us what the future holds I think you also have to factor in the CO2 that is released naturally due to warmer temperatures. I don't want to be an alarmist but the more you learn the more alarming it is.
26-07-2016 20:12
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
The correct usage of words, and trying to express yourself in superb language doesn't mean you might be more right. I prefer to use ice age. But when you like to spent words on bullshit, might imply that everything else is also bullshit.

One part of the Milankovitch cycles perfectly fit on the ice age cycles; eccentricity. No one can dismiss the very clear relations between earth's eccentric orbit and the fit on the ice age cycles over the last 800,000 years. Here is your only explanation for the cause of ice ages, and nowhere else.

Precession and obliquity add absolutely nothing to this. The earth is a sphere, and it doesn't receive more or less solar energy by tilting or wobbling it. Of course you can try to create immense difficult theories that no one understands other than the makers themselves. The only key is in eccentricity of orbit.

And still...eccentricity of orbit does not seem to be the clue. Because the average distance to the sun doesn't change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays approximately the same. But the key is there, and no one of you CO2 guys will like it one bit.

Did you know that Antarctica had abundant tropical forests, already long after Pangaea broke apart? Do you know how the institutions solved this huge dilemma? That trees developed a mechanism to grow without solar light. Haha, funny hey! That explanation comes from the same direction as the CO2 bullshit.

I won't give the clue away here. You will have to wait until 2017.
Edited on 26-07-2016 20:14
26-07-2016 20:17
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Climate scientists have been factoring naturally released CO2 into their estimates for a while now. The reason, in fact, that a "tipping point" is expected is because there's a point where the naturally released CO2 will no longer require human-caused CO2 being released to continue the positive feedback effect I explained in my 3rd response to Buildreps, as there'll be too much CO2 being added naturally to the atmosphere versus that being taken out (the process known as the Carbon Cycle).

It's worth noting that a runaway greenhouse effect like what we see on Venus is at the very least unlikely as the total amount of CO2 on our planet is probably not enough to result in such an effect, plus it'll require something more dramatic that what we can foresee to release that much even if it did.

Regardless, there are definitely people on the far-left that also over-state the dangerous of climate change and are equally unaware of the facts and dangerous as those that reject the science. As such, pointing out those facts is not being alarmist, it's being a realist. I leave the term "alarmist" for people who argue that putting even a pound more of CO2 into our atmosphere brings the Earth one step closer to the total annihilation of life.
26-07-2016 20:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Well, I have looked at the graphs and don't see it can you be more specific as to which HARDCURT data set you are using. I just get variations on;

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1998


Here's the graph of those 5 sources from actual scientific papers:



And your huge desire to find frightening numbers.



LOL!!! A 133 month average is used to illustrate that erm.. well without it the last 18 years has not seen any temperature rise. You are dishonest.

You're such a dick.

But it would make sense that you would find weakness in admitting mistakes and correcting errors. I doubt you'd ever do the same. Because, despite your transference, you're the one with the absolute, "religious", as you call it, belief. I accept everything tentatively and recognize both my own, others and science's limitations. If you could provide me reputable evidence that climate change was a sham, I'd accept that. You have not, therefore I don't accept your claims.


Let's go with the most simple; The increase in plant fertility will not drop if the CO2 level stays the same or increases.

Do you dispute that?


You will be very unset to hear that I don't think that corral which has a life span of a season will be unable to cope with a chenge of 2c over 100 years.


Well, that's a relief. An amateur skeptic does not think something that goes against his viewpoint will happen.

Sadly, experts in the field say differently, and actually use evidence and reasoning to defend their claims, instead of just assertions. I think I'll listen to them over you. No offense.

Although that rate of change is physically impossible, the heat cannot be got into the ocens quick enough to do that.


Source?


Oh, you know, basic physics.

I have the same view on the possible acidification of the oceans as it wil be a very slow slight change that they have seen many times before.


Once again, I don't care what your view is. I want to know why you hold that view. As in, what evidence and knowledge do you use to defend that belief. And more importantly, why should I accept that evidence, if you have any?


Because there have been periods of more CO2 in the air than now and the corral has been fine with it. Even growing lots faster than now. The variability of habitats in the oceans means that there will be resevoirs of old species of corral that will thrive in much more CO2 enriched water than most of the ocean's have now. 100 years is very much more than ample time for life to sort out taking advantage of increased plant food.

I did physical geography in school. I have basic understanding of how wave errosion works. I understand that sea cliffs are a product of it and beaches are a product of the deposition by the waves. The cliffs will be attacked slightly higher, which will slow the errosion rate, not as much material to pick up and throw against the cliff, and the beach will grow upwards as the sea rises. (Although it's not going to happen).


Cool. The people who do this stuff for a living have much more than a basic understanding of it. To think you know more than them because you took a class in school is nothing but arrogance.


I don't know more than experts in coastal errosion. I know more than the dicks who suck up all the bullshit that the alarmist crowd spew out. These are different groups.

So, once again, I'll listen to others who provide evidence over a false authority on the subject.


Yep, theory over practicle obvious thinkimng for yourself. Follow the priest.

17 x 0.7mm normally equalls 12mm. Or 70mm over 100 years.

I know that climate psudo-science uses different maths to the rest of us and maybe that's the source of the confusion but generally it's slightly harder to spot the lie.

70mm might. Will you notice? I might just but only because I would know what to look for.


Uhhh...

Read it again...I'll wait for you to find your errors yourself this time. See if you are able or not.

I'll post the relevant part again for you to look at:

Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010


You utterly dishonest lying shit!!

Several previous analyses of tide gauge records--employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the geometry of long-term sea-level change--have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year*... Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010**




* - That's about 160-190mm over the period in question
** - That's about 54mm over the period in question.


Why would you lie knowing that I will simply quote the previous post unless you are an habitual liar and think nobody else has any memory at all.

Given your total lack of any honesty I will end this here.

Edited on 26-07-2016 20:24
26-07-2016 20:33
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The correct usage of words, and trying to express yourself in superb language doesn't mean you might be more right.


Of course not. The content decides whether it's right.

I have no idea why you're arguing about that, though. No one's ever suggested otherwise.

One part of the Milankovitch cycles perfectly fit on the ice age cycles; eccentricity. No one can dismiss the very clear relations between earth's eccentric orbit and the fit on the ice age cycles over the last 800,000 years. Here is your only explanation for the cause of ice ages, and nowhere else.


Why does there need to be another explanation?

Precession and obliquity add absolutely nothing to this. The earth is a sphere, and it doesn't receive more or less solar energy by tilting or wobbling it.


Uh, yes, it does. It's why we have seasons.

Do you not have even a basic understanding of climate? This is grade 10 knowledge.

Of course you can try to create immense difficult theories that no one understands other than the makers themselves. The only key is in eccentricity of orbit.


Sounds like you're just upset you're too stupid to understand what's being said.

Though I bet you're not too stupid, you just don't care to learn enough to understand. Probably because, if you do, you're afraid you'll realize that it makes sense.

Regardless, though, even if it's too complex to understand, that doesn't mean it's wrong or faulty. Claiming otherwise is conspiracy-level nonsense.

And still...eccentricity of orbit does not seem to be the clue. Because the average distance to the sun doesn't change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays approximately the same.


Agreed, assuming by "the clue" you mean "the cause of current warming".

Current warming is clearly being caused by something other than what caused the glacial-interglacials of the Quaternary. CO2 fits the evidence best.

But the key is there, and no one of you CO2 guys will like it one bit.


What key?

Did you know that Antarctica had abundant tropical forests, already long after Pangaea broke apart?


Yup. Way back in the early Cretecious. What's your point?

Do you know how the institutions solved this huge dilemma? That trees developed a mechanism to grow without solar light.


Mmm, no, not quite. Trees developed an ability to hibernate, for lack of a better term, when light became scarce or non-existent over winter. In order to do so, like bears, they overproduced food during the 24-hour summer light, giving them enough to last throughout the dark periods. We still see such an adaption in northern leafy trees like maples and Gingkos today.

Haha, funny hey! That explanation comes from the same direction as the CO2 bullshit.


If you mean evidence based logical reasoning, then sure.
Edited on 26-07-2016 20:52
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate CO2 Lags About 2,000 Years Behind on Temperature Changes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)15415-10-2019 07:22
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact