Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Augustine2004]

I took a picture out of Geocarb III, which is the history of CO2 over time. RCO2 is the ratio of the past atmospheric carbon dioxide level to the present level. A value higher than 1 means there is more CO2 in the past. Below is the picture. I put the glaciations on top of the CO2.

this picture shows that CO2 is not the dirver of the climate that the AGW crowd thinks it is.

the low centered on 300 my is appreciably higher than present. What is the RCO2 number of the low point near 300 my?

[grmorton]

the low centered on 300 my is appreciably higher than present. What is the RCO2 number of the low point near 300 my?

It is around 1.2-1.3x the preindustrial atmospheric levels, which is 280 ppm. Thus, that time of glaciation had about the same amount of CO2 As we have today.

One can get the entire sequence of Geocarb CO2 levels (in terms of RCO2) at

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...rozoic_co2.txt

Here is the entire data starting at the Cambrian and moving foward to the present. Notice that at no time in the past was the CO2 level as low as it is today, and yet the hysteriacs quake and quiver in fear of 500 ppm CO2. I took the data and in the third column converted it to PPM. Today's atmosphere is just shy of 400 ppm CO2


Time.......RCO2..............ppm
Ma
-570.......11.70362..............3511.086
-560.......16.26684..............4880.052
-550.......17.95147..............5385.441
-540.......17.19382..............5158.146
-530.......25.52706..............7658.118
-520.......26.18222..............7854.666
-510.......22.39725..............6719.175
-500.......18.89189..............5667.567
-490.......17.29675..............5189.025
-480.......17.28357..............5185.071
-470.......17.72622..............5317.866
-460.......15.46943..............4640.829
-450.......15.85446..............4756.338
-440.......16.68599..............5005.797
-430.......16.99756..............5099.268
-420.......13.90174..............4170.522
-410.......11.03870..............3311.61
-400.......11.32285..............3396.855
-390.......13.45455..............4036.365
-380.......15.30221..............4590.663
-370.......8.040017..............2412.0051
-360.......6.137963..............1841.3889
-350.......4.337569..............1301.2707
-340.......2.704967..............811.4901
-330.......1.671433..............501.4299
-320.......1.338068..............401.4204
-310.......1.254083..............376.2249
-300.......1.249976..............374.9928
-290.......1.326288..............397.8864
-280.......1.255351..............376.6053
-270.......1.440589..............432.1767
-260.......1.872322..............561.6966
-250.......6.081883..............1824.5649
-240.......7.104142..............2131.2426
-230.......5.197366..............1559.2098
-220.......5.831312..............1749.3936
-210.......4.912341..............1473.7023
-200.......5.442125..............1632.6375
-190.......4.441496..............1332.4488
-180.......4.843969..............1453.1907
-170.......8.573481..............2572.0443
-160.......9.123775..............2737.1325
-150.......7.599305..............2279.7915
-140.......8.198544..............2459.5632
-130.......6.605868..............1981.7604
-120.......6.096954..............1829.0862
-110.......5.888720..............1766.616
-100.......5.301030..............1590.309
-90.........4.317839..............1295.3517
-80.........4.185097..............1255.5291
-70.........3.200051..............960.0153
-60.........2.802144..............840.6432
-50.........3.176976..............953.0928
-40.........2.066398..............619.9194
-30.........1.417627..............425.2881
-20.........1.156633..............346.9899
-10.........0.990113..............297.0339
-5............0.987970..............296.391
0.............1.280000..............384 This point I added.

[grmorton]

A new study has bought to light a sophomoric mistake on the part of those who estimate glacial ice losses. It is such a sophomoric mistake, one must wonder if it was on purpose. No geoscientist worth his salt would make the following mistake:

[cite=
Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
AFP - Wednesday, September 8SendIM StoryPrint
[quote=AFP,"Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss"]
Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.

In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.

Together, that would account for more than half of the annual three-millimetre (0.2 inch) yearly rise in sea levels, a pace that compares dramatically with 1.8mm (0.07 inches) annually in the early 1960s.

But, according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment

...
With glacial isostatic adjustment modelled in, the loss from Greenland is put at 104 gigatonnes, plus or minus 23 gigatonnes, and 64 gigatonnes from West Antarctica, plus or minus 32 gigatonnes.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/2010090...e-c1b2fc3.html
[/quote]

Let's see, they over estimate the melting of the Himalayas, over estimate how much of the Netherlands is beneath sea level, fail to take into account isostatic rebound, and we are supposed to sit at their feet and believe their 'consensus view'????

Not a chance.

[Augustine2004]

This is a compilation of blogs and the like; it includes an item on the glacial isostatic adjustment. boo-boo http://climaterealists.com/index.php

[grmorton]

This is a compilation of blogs and the like; it includes an item on the glacial isostatic adjustment. boo-boo http://climaterealists.com/index.php

It is maddening that people believe the 'consensus view' when the IPCC and company have done such sloppy science.

[oxmixmudd]

It is maddening that people believe the 'consensus view' when the IPCC and company have done such sloppy science.

So Glenn, not to change the subject, but what of the Russians tendency to believe and promote research that shows oil is not a fossil fuel? I've heard about this for a while now. How is it they are convinced these are not fossil fuels, and the west is convinced they are?

Jim

[grmorton]

So Glenn, not to change the subject, but what of the Russians tendency to believe and promote research that shows oil is not a fossil fuel? I've heard about this for a while now. How is it they are convinced these are not fossil fuels, and the west is convinced they are?

Jim

Hi Jim, When I was a young-earther, I toyed with the inorganic oil ideal. The idea won't work for a whole lot of reasons.

1. chemical biomarkers found in oil.

Hopanes come from cyanobacteria; Steranes from eukaryotes; C28 to C32 polyenoic fatty acids are a unique biomarker for sponges ; isorerenieratene comes from two groups of sulpher reducing bacteria; botryococcoane comes from the Botryococcus green algae, which live in fresh or brackish waters; Oleanane comes from angiosperms on is only found in oils younger than the upper Cretaceous (when angiosperms became widespread); 24-norcholestane from diatoms, etc etc.

2. said biomarkers found in source rocks and oils sourced from those oils, in the order that the precursor lifeform evolved.

3. Basins without source rocks have no oil.

[FLovell]

This is a compilation of blogs and the like; it includes an item on the glacial isostatic adjustment. boo-boo http://climaterealists.com/index.php

Interesting link, THANKS, Aug! I love the way that James Delingpole characterizes Lord Oxburgh of Persil as a "committed Warmist." Perhaps I should start using the term "Warmest" in place of the abbreviation AGW when I wish to refer to Anthropogenic Global Warming politicists.

-- Frank

[Augustine2004]

FLovell, have you considered 'alarmist'? 'Chickenlittlist?'

[grmorton]

FLovell, have you considered 'alarmist'? 'Chickenlittlist?'

I like Holocene deniers,

but in a pinch, hysteriac works quite well. Like Victorian ladies, they all get the vapors!

[David M]

No, they will tell us how hot it is in our cities. "Hot town, summer in the City; back of my neck get hot and gritty."

Of course they will, because the ocean temperatiure data is all sampled in cities isn't it.

Actually past CO2 levels do not inform modern models. They simply ignore that the world survived CO2 levels over 1000 ppm 55 million years ago. If the earth could survive it then, it will survive 400 or 500 ppm in the future.

The world will indeed survive, as to whether our current civilisation will survive at current population levels is a very different question, and a far more important one for our great grandchildren.

What happened in Russia is a blocking High Pressure cell, not global warming.

Whereas an event of this magnitude was unexpected for the summer of 2010, and indeed there was little if any advance warming from long lead seasonal forecasts, it is nonetheless important to assess the factors that may have been responsible for such an extreme heat wave. There is strong evidence that the immediate cause can be placed at the doorstep of an extreme pattern of atmospheric winds---widely referred to as blocking. In the situation of anticyclonic blocking such as developed over western Russia in early July 2010, the normal west-to-east movement of weather systems is inhibited, with the center of a blocking experiencing persistently quiescent weather.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

Oh gosh, now you can't claim that this is from a denier site. It is what NOAA says of the Russian event. Maybe you should stop reading AGW blogs that mislead you.

Thanks Glenn you have just confirmed my point. Rises in temperature can effect food production. I did not state that the conditions in Russia were due to global warming, you said people would the warm weather in Russia as evidence for AGW.

What I said was that rising temperatures could endanger food production as recent events in Russia have shown, whether this specific rise is due to AGW or blocking is irrelevant to that point. However if AGW predictions are correct we will see higher temperatures.

I don't take my info from blogs.

Again, Russia's drought and heat is due not to global warming but to a blocking high.

Drought/Heat = Impaired food production, that was what I said and nothing you have responded with has argued against that.

My son, as a geoscientist, I have probably read far more of the geological literature than you ever have. Maybe you should figure out to whom you are telling to do geological research before you give out advice like that.

So you admit that the literature is out there then?

[David M]

No, David, you didn't either address the issue or point me to a response by another member. You mentioned a post by Tiggy without linking to it. As you can see from my signature, I don't pay one bit of attention to that idiot Tiggy, whose, entire repetoire consists of telling everyone else that they wear a tinfoil hat. I didn't find him very informative. so, if you have something to say about how a glaciation can occur at 400 or 4000 ppm CO2, please do, otherwise admit that you didn't address the issue.

So you know who made the post and what thread its in but you need me to repost the link to the paper?

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...eyBaum1995.pdf

So there you have it, an explanation of why there could be high CO2 levels and a cold earth in that time period.

Maybe you should actually read the IPCC.

The TAR states that the changes in solar irradiance are not the major cause of the temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century unless those changes can induce unknown large feedbacks in the climate system
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ch1s1-4-3.html

That is not evidence of "It is the IPCC who says that the sun has no impact on the climate change. ", that is evidence that the TAR states that changes in irradiance are not the major cause of recent temperature changes, with the proper caveat.

To show that the IPCC is wrong you just need to demonstrate that changes in solar irradiance are a major cause. The page that you linked to is ample proof that the IPCC does now that solar changes do affect the climate.

Just did, but no doubt you will not accept it.

You link to a section discussing solar changes and how these can effect climate:

As early as 1910, Abbot believed that he had detected a downward trend in TSI that coincided with a general cooling of climate. The solar cycle variation in irradiance corresponds to an 11-year cycle in radiative forcing which varies by about 0.2 W m–2. There is increasingly reliable evidence of its influence on atmospheric temperatures and circulations, particularly in the higher atmosphere (Reid, 1991; Brasseur, 1993; Balachandran and Rind, 1995; Haigh, 1996; Labitzke and van Loon, 1997; van Loon and Labitzke, 2000). Calculations with three-dimensional models (Wetherald and Manabe, 1975; Cubasch et al., 1997; Lean and Rind, 1998; Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree celsius.

Yet you still have the gall to claim that this shows "It is the IPCC who says that the sun has no impact on the climate change. ". They clearly state that it does have an effect in climate change.

What part of "less than" do you not understand. "Less than 1/6", does not mean 'equal to 1/6"

I understand that "less than 1/6" does not mean "no impact on climate change". If its 1/8th or 1/10th its still having an impact.

I say it has been, but as I pointed out, the IPCC says it isn't enough.

Which is not the same as saying it doesn't have any.

[Augustine2004]

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...eyBaum1995.pdf

So there you have it, an explanation of why there could be high CO2 levels and a cold earth in that time period.

It should be pointed out that the paper reported results of computer runs of a model. No model has been verified--yet. Verified models may not be available for decades.

That is not evidence of "It is the IPCC who says that the sun has no impact on the climate change. ", that is evidence that the TAR states that changes in irradiance are not the major cause of recent temperature changes, with the proper caveat.

To show that the IPCC is wrong you just need to demonstrate that changes in solar irradiance are a major cause. The page that you linked to is ample proof that the IPCC does now that solar changes do affect the climate.

Not to take Glenn off the hook, but that's a minor matter, hardly worth bothering about. What we need to know is what effect the solar wind has on terrestrial climate. Do cosmic rays really have a big effect, by seeding rain clouds?

[FLovell]

FLovell, have you considered 'alarmist'? 'Chickenlittlist?'

I hadn't...but I like it, it surely fits! -- Frank

[FLovell]

I like Holocene deniers,

but in a pinch, hysteriac works quite well. Like Victorian ladies, they all get the vapors!

Hysteriac -- like, "committed Warmist hysteriac" -- yes, I like that even better! -- Frank