please explain this

Could you be more specific? Have you read Royer et al. 2004 about CO2's (attempts to control) air T? Is this a topic you'd really wish to understand, within the limitations we face?

 

The modern thermometer measurements were invented in the 1700s and widely adopted since the 1850s. So too, we have credible records of earth chemistry. Then in the 1960s, satellite observations were developed and since the 1970s, we have world-wide, metrics. So we can easily tell what has been going on since you and I have been alive. For example, this temperature tool: The DENIAL101x temperature tool

Using the tool: https://tools.ceit.uq.edu.au/temperature/index.html

Since you have an interest in one region, Greenland, I used the tool to select the 10 available stations:

Then I downloaded the data and plotted the data since 1970, the modern satellite era:

The results suggest Greenland is warming:

• 0.056 C/yr - peak temperature rate
• 0.0555 C/yr - average temperature rate
• 0.08 C/yr - local minimum temperature rate

So we can calculate how long it will take for a 1 C temperature increase:

• 18 years - slowest rate, the average
• 17.9 years - next fastest, the peaks
• 12.5 years - fastest rate, least likely

Now the tool allows choosing other areas of interest . . . say the area we live in, the Southeast:

• 88 stations
• 0.0173 C/yr
• 57.8 years - average

What this means is we have orders of magnitude more data, more accurate, and more precise than the paleorecord. We have access to world wide records including CO{2} concentrations across the globe. Better still, we have modern computers . . . like the one you are reading this posting . . . that were not available before the modern era.

I appreciate what the paleorecords can tell us but I don't go outside my home in Huntsville Alabama to make an ice core to read today's temperature. No, I use modern tools and metrics instead of haruspex.

Now there are some trivial flaws in your charts:

• ice cores are no long used to measure CO{2} - so your lower chart does not include the modern era
• the claimed temperature measurements have some upper and lower limits not shown in the chart. For example what was the temperature range on July 4, 4013 BC?
• when trying to do a correlation study, the usual practice is an X-Y chart or at least a common scale. Your CO{2} Y-scale truncates modern data but this is the point if someone is cherry picking the data.
• regional, point source, Greenland when climate is global . . . still the current heat wave in Dixie makes a Greenland vacation sound attractive. <GRINS>

You've jumped to a conclusion that only CO{2} explains all heating and cooling. In fact we know there are multiple factors which is in stark contrast to recent Ukranian and Russian, lady scientists who claim it is all sun spots (and then failed to run their model backwards.)

You and 'liar liar' mojo share a common misunderstanding that the study of earth climate ONLY uses CO{2} levels. It is understandable because that is the one consistent forcing function in the modern era. Yet CO{2} has variability that can still be overridden by short-term, forcing functions. So we also look at the other forcing functions:

• orbital mechanics
• solar radiance
• volcanic activity
• other green house gases
• ocean currents
• albedo
• and more than a single point source (a severe limitation of many pale-records)
  • PAGES 2K - another world-wide study of paleorecords

Bob Wilson

 

We don' need no stinkin' data. ("Blazing Saddles", Mo Brooks)

Like this:


Bob Wilson

 

The explanation is that CO2 is going up, and the choice of y-coordinate units (10 ppm per tic mark with the scale below 250 ppm cut off) was chosen to
MAKE THE POINT

 

i can't.

 

If the question is,"why isn't the Greenland ice sheet warmer than it has been in the past, despite the magnitudes more CO2 in the atmosphere," there are two basic reasons.

1. There is a delay between an increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. Take a house with a many windowed room. In the morning this room is cool, and lower temperature than outside in the sun. It heats up as the day progresses without the use of AC. By noon time, it is as warm in the room as out in the sun, and it soon becomes warmer than the outside temperatures. It takes time for the heat trapped by the atmospheric CO2 to build up.
2. There differences in today's climate mechanics, the wind, sea currents, and other weather patterns, and of the past. These differences have lead not has much heating to occur at this single point of the globe has as happened in the past.

On top of that the final CO2 'spike' at the end of the bottom graph was drawn out of scale to be misleading. If it followed the ppm scale in place, it wouldn't reach the X-axis of the top graph.

 

Take two carbons and call us in the morning.

DBCassidy

 

voodoo

 

Bob Wilson

 

The chart in the OP only goes back 11,000years, so there is no way that it could illustrate that. Misleading, gotcha tactics have no place in an honest discussion.

The burning of fossil fuels frees carbon the circulate through the atmosphere and oceans that has been sequestered from before the dinosaurs. The other chart shows that more recent free carbon has been slowly sequestered away by natural forces. What took 3 to 5 million years has been undone by man in 2 centuries.

The changes in atmospheric carbon concentration of the past involved different processes that operated over longer time scales. The only natural process that would equate to the CO2 concentration increase rate from burning fossil fuels would be large scale volcanic activity. Those involve the dumping of other variables into the air, and have fortunately for life on this planet have been a rare ocurance. The rapid rate change means direct comparisons of typical past warming and cooling may be in error.

 

We are seeing via Keeling curve that even including the past 800,000 years, a period of time when modern human evolved:

So we are already seeing a doubling of CO in a blink of time:

Dinosaurs were the dominant species 66 million years ago. So I'm amused by this chart:

All available evidence shows an accelerating rate of CO{2} but we could take a gross set of numbers:

• doubling 250 ppm every 200 years
  • ~500 @ 2050
  • ~1000 = 500 + 500 @ 2250
  • ~2000 = 1000 + 1000 @ 2450 -- welcome back dinosaurs, the new intelligent species

In a world as warm as the Cretaceous, 'cold blooded' critters have an advantage. Less energy wasted maintaining a constant body temperature in the cold.

Oh, you mean like this?

. . . that only CO{2} explains all heating and cooling. In fact we know there are multiple factors which is in stark contrast to recent Ukranian and Russian, lady scientists who claim it is all sun spots (and then failed to run their model backwards.)

You and 'liar liar' mojo share a common misunderstanding that the study of earth climate ONLY uses CO{2} levels. It is understandable because that is the one consistent forcing function in the modern era. Yet CO{2} has variability that can still be overridden by short-term, forcing functions. So we also look at the other forcing functions:​

• • orbital mechanics
  • solar radiance
  • volcanic activity
  • other green house gases
  • ocean currents
  • albedo
  • and more than a single point source (a severe limitation of many pale-records)
  • PAGES 2K - another world-wide study of paleorecords

You have not cited one alternative forcing function that I can find.

To me, it looks like our planet has past a threshold around 1970 where forcing functions that used to mask the current and increasing CO{2} levels could have held off the CO{2} greenhouse effect. This coincides with Hansen's look at orbital mechanics and CO{2}. So I'm fairly calm because as time moves forward:

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" - Bob Dylan, "Subterranean Homesick Blues"​

Bob Wilson

 

I would say that friendly_jacek is challenging us (well not us, but climate scientists) to show how much (let's say doubled) CO2 could increase air T over 100 or 1000 years. Seems a reasonable request. It seems to have been answered vaguely in research summarized by IPCC. I only invoke IPCC because who here at PC would read a thousand published papers?

The range of CO2/T sensitivity is wide, from less than 2 oC to more than 4. It has not been narrowed by IPCC iterations, and from that I conclude that it will not soon be.

So, as we seem unable to narrow, this sensitivity, what, exactly, is friendly_jacek calling for? A presumption that much more CO2 will only help us?

I don't think the matter can be settled here. I don't think that anyone has got the goods. So climate change unfortunately seems to go to best guesses. If a fella is sure that much more CO2 is a good thing, present the evidence. Against that, well, all those published studies.

Ignoring those published studies, a ton of money accrues (to somebody) for continuing and increasing fossil-C burn. I am sure there is some CO2 trajectory that will produces best benefits for people at large. But I don't know it. If it could be found among PC postings, I would be most happy and Our Danny will have accomplished much more than originally planned.

 

If the next decade T increases as recent decades have done, will it make any difference for you? Will you continue to seek 'anything but CO2' as a cause? Might you wonder if slowing the rate or CO2 increase could be helpful?

I am totally 'on board' with the idea that now-CO2 insures against a next ice age. But not that it is the only thing to think about.

If you feel uncertain about future T, I can clear that up. Increasing. It seems rather behind the times to not know this. Pick up your game.

It would be a capital mistake to confuse short and long-term (proxies) in this regard.

 

Sorry witless,

That is your chart, not mine. But there is another problem:

The 'experiment' is already in progress and just as real as the outside temperature:
Maps and Radar | Weather Underground


Seriously, the facts and data exists in the real world today:

• multiple global temperature records
• satellite observations of solar radiance
• satellite observations of CO{2}
• earth orbital mechanics
• global sea level observations
• global weather observations
• polar ice and land snow and ice observations
• Argo sampling of oceans down to +1000 m.

No matter how long you want to live (and die) in the paleo-record, the problem is:

1. Greenland is not the world
2. Ice cores are no longer used for current CO{2}
3. We continue to look at every forcing functions today
   1. So far, they are regional and temporary

You're stuck millions of years in the past without enough data to explain anything you're trying to babble about. Get current or get:

I drove both a 1929 and 1931 Model A in high school. Dad thought it would teach us mechanics. It taught us 'DO NOT DO THIS EVER AGAIN!'

Bob Wilson

 

US and Euro are doing recycling for sustainability. We'd add China for growth of renewable E. Al of these are as they are. If there is something wrong with what scientist are publishing about climate change, it ought to be fixable.

But not here at little ol' PC. You gotta take your better stuff to the journals and see what happens. There is 'Energy and Environment', and the WUWT guy is starting another online journal. You have options.

If holding CO2 to 400 ppm is too Draconian, we can consider higher. Make your case.

I can't imagine any benefit coming from 'childish' or any other such adjectives. I do know why climate scientists are scared about the future. They feel unempowered and it is hard to blame them. Does not mean they are right. It only means that we should take a careful look at the whole possible range of outcomes, and chose a path that is not overly controlled by fossil-C burning money as it is now.