please explain this

"Son" is a Southern reply to an injudicious use of "stupid." Still, you are right, I should have use something more high-brow from a thesaurus:

dull, dumb, foolish, futile, ill-advised, irrelevant, laughable, ludicrous, naive, senseless, shortsighted, simple, trivial, dummy, loser, rash, thick, unintelligent, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, meaningless, mindless, moronic, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, simpleminded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unthinking, witless​

I though the original poster might be Southern forgetting how many d*mn Yankees move to Dixie and stay. I'll fix it.

Bob Wilson

 

At only one point on the globe.

 

Greenland is an excellent choice. The ice libraries are extensive, and a much easier trip than to Antarctica.

Against that, it appears to have a singular climate strongly affected by widely varying temperatures of adjacent ocean currents.

More proxies may become available to sort that out later, so 'hang on to your cores'.

 

We also have to consider secondary and tertiary effects. E.g, the direct CO2 related GHG heating leads to less albedo.

 

Yes there are limits to what CO2 by itself can do. As I understand radiative transfer models, 2 oC per CO2 doubling is just about it. Albedo changes (cloud and ice cover) stand by as potential helpers.

Milankovich cycles have narrow limits over watt/m2 delivery, but they last quite a long time.

Direct solar (spot/magnetic) cycles have even narrower limits, but are by no means ignorable.

Volcanic injection of sulfate - I don;t think one could put a clear limit of how much they could do, the next time they get really angry.

Only one of the above, could humans act to strongly increase or decrease - please guess which.

 

I was under the impression methane release will cause a huge GHG forcing.

 

Simple.

The red line shows we are mining as much carbon material as possible, combusting it, and dumping all the major combustion products into the atmosphere in a very short period.

Second, the blue line shows the temperature at the top of a big ice cube over a long period.


Attempts to 1) link the two or 2) show the two are independent is not productive science....but it does make a good Rorschach test for anyone attempting to do so.

 

In the first pair of graphs, CO2 seems to end about 400 ppm which would be very current. The air T appears to come from GISP2, which is an ice cor with a top some years ago. Maybe 1850? 1900? 1950?

If we wanted to compare current annual air T at the Greenland summit, it might or might not be -29.5 as depicted here. I all in favor of adding the current T dot, just to see where it is.

It was warm at the summit
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Record warmth at the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet | Weather Underground
and we may have talked about that at the time.

OK, I got the ESRL greenland summit data for 2014 (most recent posted) average air T was -28.5 So that would be the final dot.

If one wanted to compare the most recent increases in both, T went from -32 to -28.5 (+3.5 oC) while CO2 increased from 290 to 400 (less than doubling). One could use that to estimate CO2 sensitivity, but singular Greenland climate might make one approach that with caution.

Anyway f_j wanted an explanation, and there is mine. Increase CO2 a lot, and even this big ice cube notices.

 

Artic is abnormally cold this season.
You wish to point out a single warm reading just highlights your BIAS.
Shameful that you present yourself as an unbiased scientist.
When in fact you present data which is not representative.

 

Looking for something else, I found a nice series of write-ups at NOAA:

• The Beginning
• The Data
• Glacial-Interglacial cycles
• Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events
• The Younger Dryas
• Post-glacial cooling 8,200 Years Ago
• End of the African Humid Period
• Drought and the Akkadian empire
• Drought and the Ancient Maya Civilization
• A Final Word

For those interested in the paleo-record, here is good place to start. Regardless, my interest in current climate data pretty well dates from 1970s when Dr. Hansen began analyzing earth orbital mechanics and a pending 'Ice Age' only to find Greenhouse gasses had mitigated the pending cold snap. Using ice cores, we find:

Oldest Greenland Ice Core Recovered - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

This is from the Antarctic VOSTOK ice core. Notice how stable the climate has been during the short blip of time called the Holocene. Virtually all of civilisation developed in the Holocene. Notice how unstable the climate was before! NEEM has now obtained a core from Greenland that goes back a similar period to that shown here. (NOAA)
​

This was during the ice age that preceded the Eemian. The Eemian is the warm period before our last ice age. This means we now have an ice core that goes all the way back through the Holocene (The warm period after the last ice age in which we now live), the ice age before the Holocene, and then the warm period before the last ice age (The Eemian) and finally into the penultimate ice age before the Eemian!

Knowing what the climate of Earth was like in the Eemian is vitally important. The main reason is because there is overwhelming evidence the Earth will be as warm as the Eemian by the end of this century.

It should not be. The best evidence we have is that the Earth should be cooling slightly. It is actually doing just the opposite because of rapidly rising greenhouse gases.
​

So the good thing about the NOAA write-up is it cites source material and discusses forcing functions. But that really doesn't matter for the future unless we can find equivalent forcing functions WHICH the satellite era can identify and document.

Bob Wilson

 

Mojo, put down the bottle and THINK. friendly_jacek posted two graphs with a question. I think that 10-y averaged CO2 and T would be better would be a better endpoint, but that would not fit eh?

How cold the arctic may be now matters not to this discussion, nor can it illuminate until T and CO2 gets posted by ESRL. Do you really think that this year could change the trends? I know you as a person who is very close to 'getting it', with only shedding ill-disposed websites standing between you and knowledge.

There is no shame, for either of us. We are on opposite sides of the street, but both interested in where this street goes.

ESRl Greenland summit met data goes back ??? years. Free for anyone to download. Great that you want to do so, but it will show ???. Whatever it shows, just make your point.

Friendly_jacek already posted that that warming above the GISP2 core has recently faster than global average. I only aspired to make both graphs equally current. What a thing, that you would choose this here as a place to resurface in a bad mood.

 

Bob, despite anyone's best efforts, there is no continuous ice in Antarctica or Greenland older than about six and one million years, respectively. That is it for those libraries. We love 'em, we gotta punch the holes, but that's it. Likely that no holes will get the entire sequence because nobody knows where to punch.

Any other, longer, proxy records will come from well-chosen marine sedimentary deposition series, and much work remains there. Oceanography is costly only below satellites and South-polar doodling, So, will it get funded? Marine sediments are the much longer libraries.

I am inclined to think once we have the -3Mya climate sorted, that would be ENOUGH. Just me talkin' though.

 

Also:


Source data?

Bob Wilson

 

This is, finally, a paleo CO2 and T thread.Only thus can we learn here, and the "Greenland choice' in front led to higher CO2 sensitivity than I really accept. Greenland has a singular climate, and we'd not assume that global CO2/T is quite so hot.

Other references examine global CO2/T, summarized (as you'd expect) by IPCC. But I don't even care. We will have +0.1 or 0.2 in the next few decades, just as the recent ones have been. Such as those won't quite make the world 2 oC warmer. We'd need some +0.3 or 0.4 decades to get 'er done.

Frankly, I don't think that near-term slow +T iwill excite people. If the WAIS dumps a half of meter sea level, it will be a matter of general concern. Then and perhaps only then, people will feel a need to take control of the situation, instead of (as now) letting it just run away.

 

I'm fairly calm about the ice core records but I thought the history of drilled cores was shallower. Certainly long enough to span the last Ice Age (for as long as the ice remains.) Regardless, I remain more interested in the modern era.

There are multiple forcing functions controlling our climate. And there will be unplanned and unpredictable ones along with some that can be modeled. Today, more attention is being paid to La Nina and El Nino to the detriment of my favorite Icelandic volcano. So far, it looks like CO{2} is holding off a cold period but may even lead to some 'hot times in the near future.'

Bob Wilson

 

Bob@33, stop talking about personal home data inspections! It is not our way here. We just blather about how thing might go over a few decades. God willing, we'll find some closer or further from the truth.

 

I can't imagine the OP is helped very much by this discussion. After skimming, I'm not sure the correct scientific points were even made, although some of them were.

1) Green house gas warming (ghg) is not uniform. It most definitely is not in Greenland. The way to show it is with global not regional temperatures.

2) GHG warming is related to the log of concentration, not the concentration itself. If you want to compare temperature to carbon dioxide concentration you should use a log scale for carbon dioxide concentration.

3) Over the long time period presented in the original graph, solar radiation based on the variation in the sun's intensity and earth's orbit is a major factor. These changes in radiation need to be taken into account.

4) There are time lags, and major events, such as the little ice age that drastically impact the Greenland temperatures shown. The little ice age has not been fully explained but solar radiation, ocean oscillations, and 4 major volcanic eruptions have been pointed to as possible explanations. We hope science will sort this out.

 

Oh, you mean like your earlier postings suggesting CO{2} plays little or no role in today's climate? <rim-shot>

For now, I am most interested in quantifying the effects. So I am amused when climate deniers say "CO{2} helps crops grow" as if that were the only effect:

(i.e., Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, Jim Inhofe)

Bob Wilson