In article ,
says...

(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
"Coby Beck" wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote ...

[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this
even less than unlikely?

No. The year-to-year variation in estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions
doesn't seem to correlate well with any variations in the increase in
atmospheric concentrations. It's true enough that they're both
increasing. But the hypothetical question of what would CO2
concentrations be today even if we had never burned coal-oil-gas is not
so straightforward to answer. I'm curious at the folks who point to the
ice core evidence of CO2-temperature as a pillar of the science yet they
don't seem to take the implications of the lag (CO2 rise always lags
temperature proxy rise in the ice cores) at all seriously.

That's because the mechanisms of CO2 emissions are different. After the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level increasing.

In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?

I do understand the type of theory you present. Do you think ice didn't
melt during MWP?

Your question shows that you don't understand the difference between a small
scale, local melting of mountain glaciers and the major changes which
resulted
as the ice sheets retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. As Coby Beck
pointed out in a companion responce, the sea level data indicates that there
has been little change over the last 8k years or so, which includes the
so-called MWP.

Compare that with the rise of about 125 meters in SL since the LGM.

You seem to base your position on the notion that there is some
threshold, not reached during MWP, below which mel****er change does not
affect atmospheric CO2 as you reasonably suggest was or might have been
the case in the past. Your disparaging remarks about the basis of my
question would be vacuous if you could not prove that particular notion.
So back up your blather if you can.

Sorry, but you are the guy that suggested that melting during the so-called
MWP (aka: the European Warm Period) produced a significant jump in CO2 that
could be the cause of today's increasing CO2 levels. All the while, you have
ignored the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions. And, you ignore the fact that
the mechanisms of CO2 increase after the Ice Ages is most certainly different
than that which we are presently experiencing, mentioning only "mel****er
change" as the causal agent. How about albedo change resulting from the
major reduction in area covered by ice sheets? What about the slow warming
of the oceans after the Ice Ages, which would release dissolved CO2 into the
air (and may do as mankind's warming kicks in)?

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

In article ,
says...

(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
"Coby Beck" wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote ...

[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this
even less than unlikely?

No. The year-to-year variation in estimated anthropogenic CO2
emissions
doesn't seem to correlate well with any variations in the increase in
atmospheric concentrations. It's true enough that they're both
increasing. But the hypothetical question of what would CO2
concentrations be today even if we had never burned coal-oil-gas is
not
so straightforward to answer. I'm curious at the folks who point to
the
ice core evidence of CO2-temperature as a pillar of the science yet
they
don't seem to take the implications of the lag (CO2 rise always lags
temperature proxy rise in the ice cores) at all seriously.

That's because the mechanisms of CO2 emissions are different. After
the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level
increasing.

In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?

I do understand the type of theory you present. Do you think ice didn't
melt during MWP?

Your question shows that you don't understand the difference between a
small
scale, local melting of mountain glaciers and the major changes which
resulted
as the ice sheets retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. As Coby Beck
pointed out in a companion responce, the sea level data indicates that
there
has been little change over the last 8k years or so, which includes the
so-called MWP.

Compare that with the rise of about 125 meters in SL since the LGM.

You seem to base your position on the notion that there is some
threshold, not reached during MWP, below which mel****er change does not
affect atmospheric CO2 as you reasonably suggest was or might have been
the case in the past. Your disparaging remarks about the basis of my
question would be vacuous if you could not prove that particular notion.
So back up your blather if you can.

Sorry, but you are the guy that suggested that melting during the so-called
MWP (aka: the European Warm Period) produced a significant jump in CO2 that
could be the cause of today's increasing CO2 levels. All the while, you have
ignored the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions. And, you ignore the fact that
the mechanisms of CO2 increase after the Ice Ages is most certainly different
than that which we are presently experiencing, mentioning only "mel****er
change" as the causal agent. How about albedo change resulting from the
major reduction in area covered by ice sheets? What about the slow warming
of the oceans after the Ice Ages, which would release dissolved CO2 into the
air (and may do as mankind's warming kicks in)?

I'm sorry that you're so discombobulated about who's said what on the
issue of the implications of the 800-year lag of CO2 rise behind
temperature rise in ice core. I appreciate the plausibility of your
theory given your assumptions. Even sharing some of those assumptions,
however, is not reason to embrace your theory about the particulars of
the lag.

BTW, do you think there's more or less ice in northern latitudes now
compared to MWP?

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article ,
says...

(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
"Coby Beck" wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote ...

[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes
this
even less than unlikely?

No. The year-to-year variation in estimated anthropogenic CO2
emissions
doesn't seem to correlate well with any variations in the increase in
atmospheric concentrations. It's true enough that they're both
increasing. But the hypothetical question of what would CO2
concentrations be today even if we had never burned coal-oil-gas is
not
so straightforward to answer. I'm curious at the folks who point to
the
ice core evidence of CO2-temperature as a pillar of the science yet
they
don't seem to take the implications of the lag (CO2 rise always lags
temperature proxy rise in the ice cores) at all seriously.

That's because the mechanisms of CO2 emissions are different. After
the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level
increasing.

In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?

I do understand the type of theory you present. Do you think ice didn't
melt during MWP?

Your question shows that you don't understand the difference between a
small
scale, local melting of mountain glaciers and the major changes which
resulted
as the ice sheets retreated at the end of the last Ice Age. As Coby Beck
pointed out in a companion responce, the sea level data indicates that
there
has been little change over the last 8k years or so, which includes the
so-called MWP.

Compare that with the rise of about 125 meters in SL since the LGM.

You seem to base your position on the notion that there is some
threshold, not reached during MWP, below which mel****er change does not
affect atmospheric CO2 as you reasonably suggest was or might have been
the case in the past. Your disparaging remarks about the basis of my
question would be vacuous if you could not prove that particular notion.
So back up your blather if you can.

Sorry, but you are the guy that suggested that melting during the so-called
MWP (aka: the European Warm Period) produced a significant jump in CO2 that
could be the cause of today's increasing CO2 levels. All the while, you
have
ignored the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions. And, you ignore the fact that
the mechanisms of CO2 increase after the Ice Ages is most certainly
different
than that which we are presently experiencing, mentioning only "mel****er
change" as the causal agent. How about albedo change resulting from the
major reduction in area covered by ice sheets? What about the slow warming
of the oceans after the Ice Ages, which would release dissolved CO2 into the
air (and may do as mankind's warming kicks in)?

I'm sorry that you're so discombobulated about who's said what on the
issue of the implications of the 800-year lag of CO2 rise behind
temperature rise in ice core. I appreciate the plausibility of your
theory given your assumptions. Even sharing some of those assumptions,
however, is not reason to embrace your theory about the particulars of
the lag.

What theory of mine? Wasn't you that wrote this??

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

It's this "theory" of yours that I find not even remotely plausible and
prompted my reply to this thread. What happened during the so-called WMP has
nothing to do with today's ongoing increase in CO2, AIUI. You have posted a
notion that has no merit, which I think you realize as you have not provided
any scientific foundation for the claim.

BTW, do you think there's more or less ice in northern latitudes now
compared to MWP?

I have no clue and it really wouldn't matter, as I see it. I can claim with
near certainty that there weren't kilometer thick layers of ice over large
portions of the NH at any period during the last 2000 years, as there are said
to have been at the LGM, except for Greenland.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
(Eric Swanson) wrote:


In article ,
says...

In article gl7pf.12043$wg4.4396@edtnps84,
"Coby Beck" wrote:

"Steve Schulin" wrote ...

[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this even
less than unlikely?

No. The year-to-year variation in estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions
doesn't seem to correlate well with any variations in the increase in
atmospheric concentrations. It's true enough that they're both
increasing. But the hypothetical question of what would CO2
concentrations be today even if we had never burned coal-oil-gas is not
so straightforward to answer. I'm curious at the folks who point to the
ice core evidence of CO2-temperature as a pillar of the science yet they
don't seem to take the implications of the lag (CO2 rise always lags
temperature proxy rise in the ice cores) at all seriously.

That's because the mechanisms of CO2 emissions are different. After the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level increasing.
In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?


I do understand the type of theory you present. Do you think ice didn't
melt during MWP?

Splendid mis-direction there Steve. How about admitting that as the
Earth warms from which I take it that you do agree that after the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level increasing.
In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different.

Glad to see you agree.

josh halpern

PS: Coby and Eric this is one of Steve's favorite tactics, dragging a
red herring across the path to hide the trail. Don't fall for it.




Best wishes,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article QPmqf.44726$eI5.40665@trnddc05,
Joshua Halpern wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
says...
"Coby Beck" wrote:
"Steve Schulin" wrote ...

[CO2 and temp corelation in the glacial record]

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

Don't you think the isotope signature of the CO2 increase makes this even
less than unlikely?

No. The year-to-year variation in estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions
doesn't seem to correlate well with any variations in the increase in
atmospheric concentrations. It's true enough that they're both
increasing. But the hypothetical question of what would CO2
concentrations be today even if we had never burned coal-oil-gas is not
so straightforward to answer. I'm curious at the folks who point to the
ice core evidence of CO2-temperature as a pillar of the science yet they
don't seem to take the implications of the lag (CO2 rise always lags
temperature proxy rise in the ice cores) at all seriously.

That's because the mechanisms of CO2 emissions are different. After the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level increasing.
In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different. Why do you find it so difficult to understand that?


I do understand the type of theory you present. Do you think ice didn't
melt during MWP?

Splendid mis-direction there Steve. How about admitting that as the
Earth warms from which I take it that you do agree that after the
Ice Ages, the melting ice probably RESULTED in the CO2 level increasing.
In the present situation, there are no large ice sheets and the CO2
increase is said to be the CAUSE of warming. Thus, the timing is
different.

Glad to see you agree.

I don't agree that it is clear that the reason (why the ice cores show
that CO2 rise follows temperature) is melting ice.

josh halpern

PS: Coby and Eric this is one of Steve's favorite tactics, dragging a
red herring across the path to hide the trail. Don't fall for it.

What's the red herring here, Josh? The MWP? That's been at the core of
my comments in this subthread since the get go.

Best wishes,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2
is a
response to Medieval Warm Period.

It's this "theory" of yours that I find not even remotely plausible and
prompted my reply to this thread. What happened during the so-called WMP
has
nothing to do with today's ongoing increase in CO2, AIUI. You have posted
a
notion that has no merit, which I think you realize as you have not
provided
any scientific foundation for the claim.

It's unlikely that Steve really thinks this is the case, but regardless
there is another big problem with that notion, and that is the magnitude of
the CO2 rise now vs the magnitude of the temperature rise in the MWP.
Looking he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png
if one really wants to claim the mechanism for CO2 rise now is the same
lagged response as the other rises in the glacial record one would have to
think that the MWP was a ~10oC skyrocketing of global temps rather than a
~1oC bump.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Steve Schulin wrote:

The first finding that CO2 lagged, rather
than led, temperature change was quite a blow

Really. In reality it led to a check of the analysis which found an error in
the timeline related to O18/016 depostion rates that changed the lag to a
small fraction of the error bars. You really have to include the QUALITY of
the data when trying to reach firm conclusiosn.

Are you referring to Shackleton (2000) here, in particular?

I did some reading, and learned quite a bit. This is a canard that
quacks very differently now.

------------------------------------
SwimJim


The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------

In article ,
(Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:

says...

I'm sorry that you're so discombobulated about who's said what on the
issue of the implications of the 800-year lag of CO2 rise behind
temperature rise in ice core. I appreciate the plausibility of your
theory given your assumptions. Even sharing some of those assumptions,
however, is not reason to embrace your theory about the particulars of
the lag.

What theory of mine? ...

Your theory as to why the ice core analyses show CO2 rise lagging
800-1,000 years behind temperature rise.

... Wasn't you that wrote this??

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is
a response to Medieval Warm Period.

It's this "theory" of yours that I find not even remotely plausible and
prompted my reply to this thread. What happened during the so-called WMP has
nothing to do with today's ongoing increase in CO2, AIUI. ...

The fact is we don't know why the CO2 lags temperature. Your notion that
it's due to melting ice is a reasonable one. It could also have been
some other reason, such as upwelling and downwelling changes long after
the warming of surface waters, due to mixing. When you say "AIUI" here
and "the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions", I question the scientific
basis for these comments. If the warming in the distant past resulted in
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations after 800-1,000 years, perhaps
the same thing is happening now due to what happened, temperature-wise,
800-1,000 years ago.

... You have posted a
notion that has no merit, which I think you realize as you have not provided
any scientific foundation for the claim.

Well, it's one thing to be willing to accept, as a reasonable assumption
for purposes of policy, that man's CO2 emissions are the reason for the
observed rise in atmospheric concentrations. It's quite another matter
to pretend that we understand the ins and outs of why and how atmospherc
CO2 varies. There's very interesting research going on in different
ocean locations trying to help understand. The role of wind patterns is
an example of question which might be vital to understanding.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article , says...

(Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:
says...

I'm sorry that you're so discombobulated about who's said what on the
issue of the implications of the 800-year lag of CO2 rise behind
temperature rise in ice core. I appreciate the plausibility of your
theory given your assumptions. Even sharing some of those assumptions,
however, is not reason to embrace your theory about the particulars of
the lag.

What theory of mine? ...

Your theory as to why the ice core analyses show CO2 rise lagging
800-1,000 years behind temperature rise.

I don't claim my notion to be even a hypothesis, as I haven't taken the time to
study the question. It's certainly no my "theory" as I have no data to provide
any sort of support, other than the "warm coke" model of outgassing, which, as
I recall, does not give the proper description of the cycle of CO2 into and
out of the oceans.

... Wasn't you that wrote this??

A lag of 800-1,000 years might mean that recent rise in CO2 is
a response to Medieval Warm Period.

It's this "theory" of yours that I find not even remotely plausible and
prompted my reply to this thread. What happened during the so-called WMP has
nothing to do with today's ongoing increase in CO2, AIUI. ...

The fact is we don't know why the CO2 lags temperature. Your notion that
it's due to melting ice is a reasonable one. It could also have been
some other reason, such as upwelling and downwelling changes long after
the warming of surface waters, due to mixing. When you say "AIUI" here
and "the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions", I question the scientific
basis for these comments.

Uh, Nuke, ever heard of isotopes? As in 13C vs. 12C? The source of the
recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is rather obvious from a scientific point
of view, unless you aren't interested in the science. But we already know
that you think the Earth is less than 15,000 years old, so your use of data
from the ice cores is quite two faced. The ice cores provide a record said
to represent of changes over more than 500,000 years. Since you have
suggested that the Earth is much younger than that, why are you relying on
data from the ice cores to support any conclusion? Afterall, that the date
model is correct is central to your argument that the warming preceeded the
CO2 increase. Have you now decided to accept the date model(s) for the
ice cores?

...If the warming in the distant past resulted in
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations after 800-1,000 years, perhaps
the same thing is happening now due to what happened, temperature-wise,
800-1,000 years ago.

No, Nuke, there is no physical reason to connect the two episodes of CO2
changes, as has been pointed out to you before. The Earth was different
back then, compared to the present, because of the ice sheets. The major
alteration of the Earth as the ice sheets melted has no analog in today's
world, AIUI. If you think you can show that there is some similarity,
you are free to publish your theory of cause and effect.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Schulin wrote:

"the recent well documented increase in atmospheric CO2, which is
rather solidly linked to mankind's emissions", I question the scientific
basis for these comments. If the warming in the distant past resulted in
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations after 800-1,000 years, perhaps
the same thing is happening now due to what happened, temperature-wise,
800-1,000 years ago.

Classic, Steve, just classic.

First, cast unreasonable doubt over what is well supported by
evidence, then propose an explanation that depends on not one but
three bogus assertions.

Nice. Real nice.

And you are here to learn?


--
Phil Hays
--
Clues for sale or rent,
Hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.