Man Based Global Warming....

Dude, I know you get a lot of revenue from maintenance of ICE vehicles and that will largely dry up when electric cars take over and that's going to hurt, but c'mon....

The polar bears are surviving on bird eggs these days.... Goose Eggs May Help Polar Bears Weather Climate Change

 

Nice try, but weak. I only count about 10 of the 33 in which current values exceed all past peak values for the same record. And of the 10, four appear to be from the same contaminated Finland lake. Hardly compelling.

 

Yeah but you don't know anything about them. You don't know if they were used in Mann's paper or even if they are appropriate.

Do you even know what the units are?

 

That's easy. Al Gore says sea level will rise by 7 meters. The IPCC says it is from 8 to 59 cm.

Gore can hardly be blamed, he is a politician and has a long history of exaggeration. That is who he is - and I don't fault him for that. I fault people who unquestioningly believe that what he says bears any resemblance to reality.

 

As if on cue:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&eurl[/ame]

 

Interesting. I'll be the first to admit that Statistical Process Control is not my area of expertise. I assume you are using trend rules (6 or more points in a row trending up or down) or 8 consecutive points on one side of the control line to determine that this system is out of control. The problem is with those criteria the system has never been in control. You attribute the current run in increasing temperature to increasing CO2 while ignoring a 700 year run of decreasing temperature while CO2 was steadily rising.

This is very true (the lack of confidence part). The same can be true of the opposite reaction. The engineer that recommends an expensive capital expenditure to correct a problem based on partial understanding of the problem. Then once this new equipment comes online nothing changes and it turns out that the variable the engineer was sure was the driving factor turns out to be irrelevant. Said engineer can quickly find himself looking for a new job. I very quickly learned to admit that I don't have the answer instead of following a hunch.


Take the following graph. It has been very popular during this thread:



You assert that the connection between CO2 and temperature are more than a correlation but instead represent causation. Increased CO2 = Increase Temperature. This time period represents the absolute best correlation of CO2 to Temperature in the past 2000 years. However, despite a steady increase in CO2 levels temperature only increases 2/3rds of the time.

If you look at the very long term CO2 / Temperature relationship it is very clear that the very close correlations stopped 10,000 years ago.



10,000 years ago CO2 levels started to spike at a very aggressive rate. One would expect a corresponding spike in temperature but it doesn't happen. Instead temperature slowly decreased. To me this shows that CO2 is not the driving factor for the world's temperature but instead some other variable that we may not even be aware of.

 

You can't compare those two graphs. The time scale of the upper graph fits on the width of the tip of your cursor on the lower graph.

When you see a sharp peak in the lower graph we are still talking about a change over 50,000 to 100,000 years! You could not detect an abrupt change over 200 years in that graph. It would be thinner than a pixel!

 

If you're interested in understanding CO2 lag, try reading:
RealClimate (The Lag between CO2 and temperature)
or
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

Al Gore was talking worst case scenario - which we should be talking about considering what's at stake. Geez you guys are careless with your kid's future.

see Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry it's only wikipedia - I assume the references 10 and 11 can be referenced back to peer reviewed journals.

 

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts

Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts

 

When did this lagging start? It is easy to see that CO2 and Temperature move together until ~10,000 years ago.

Alric,

A 500,000 year graph is not ideal to look at 10,000 years but latest spike in CO2 from ~250 PPM to ~280 PPM is easy to see. If you can present me with a graph that plots CO2 and temperature for the past 10,000 years I would love to see it. (Of course I asked for that earlier with nothing appearing.)

Temperature (Blue) peaks ~12,000 years ago and then starts to slowly decline with large up and down variation. At the same time dust (Red) drops almost to 0. CO2 (green) drops slightly for ~ 2,000 years then spikes for the last 10,000 years.

It is interesting to see that dust plotted on the same scale. Earlier I talked about a new peer reviewed study in Science that attributed a larger percentage of global warming to the Asian "Brown Clouds" than CO2. Not a peep back.

 

And the expert? A professor of marketing. J. Scott Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lots of climate and biology knowledge there.

 

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.
​

For a more detailed explanation, see
The lag between temperature and CO2.

 

He wasn't proclaiming ot be an expert on polar bears, but of forecasting.

Professor Armstrong is author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, and Principles of Forecasting. He is a co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, the International Symposium on Forecasting, and forecastingprinciples.com.

If the US Fish and Wildlife Service has applied their fromula to Polar Bears 35 years ago, do you think the numbers would be close to what they are now? I bet they would show extinction or near extiction.

 

Yet some knowledge about the topic might have aided Mr. Armstrong in actually, perhaps, being accurate.

See also Page van der Linden | Enter the Inhofian Polar Bear Expert

or
Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast for the accuracy of Armstrong's work regarding Climate Change.

 

1) Your article says Temperature lags CO2 by 600 to 1,000 years. That is consistent with the graph of CO2 vs Temperature from 500,000 years before present. It is a order a magnitude off from the 10,000 year lag that appeared 10,000 years ago.

2) RealClimate.org is not a credible source of information. It is a political blog that happens to be written by a half-dozen climatologists. Political organizations give talking points to convince people, not scientific organizations. (RC's Wiki starts with an article about how to convince skeptics that AGW is real.)​

 

Maybe, just maybe they are climatologists sharing their expertise and have an article answering pseudoskeptical points?

 

Well, if you don't like getting information from actual climate scientists then what can I say. Enjoy your ignorance. Good day to you.

 

But Polar Bears eat cute baby seals.