In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:
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?

I don't recall him saying that he was here to learn science.
He could be hear to learn: how to debate (better), how to cast
doubt, how to spread fear and uncertainty, how to misrepresent
effectively, ... and many in that vein. He may have said that
he wanted to learn 'about science'. But, again, a multitude
of things can be hidden behind that comment without ever having
the slightest interest in learning scientific material. It
could be 'about' private preferences of people who do science,
what sorts of allegations most rapidly tick off science-minded
people, or the like.

If you read carefully, you'll see that he states far less than
a normal reading would lead you to think. Above, for instance,
he says that he questions the scientific basis of a scientific
conclusion. He does not present the basis, much less a scientific
basis for his question.

What follows is not connected to the preceding except
by continuity (there's a term for this but it escapes me at the
moment -- it's common in debate circles). Also notice that
'perhaps'. He advances no reason to believe that it _is_ the
case, just waving 'perhaps'. Advertisers use the term 'weasel'
for such phrases. They don't actually say anything -- as _anything_
can be 'perhaps'. 'perhaps' the martians made it happen -- has
no more, nor less, scientific merit than his actual statement.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article ,
(Robert Grumbine) wrote:

In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:
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?

I don't recall him saying that he was here to learn science.
He could be hear to learn: how to debate (better), how to cast
doubt, how to spread fear and uncertainty, how to misrepresent
effectively, ... and many in that vein. He may have said that
he wanted to learn 'about science'. But, again, a multitude
of things can be hidden behind that comment without ever having
the slightest interest in learning scientific material. It
could be 'about' private preferences of people who do science,
what sorts of allegations most rapidly tick off science-minded
people, or the like.

If you read carefully, you'll see that he states far less than
a normal reading would lead you to think. Above, for instance,
he says that he questions the scientific basis of a scientific
conclusion. He does not present the basis, much less a scientific
basis for his question.

What follows is not connected to the preceding except
by continuity (there's a term for this but it escapes me at the
moment -- it's common in debate circles). Also notice that
'perhaps'. He advances no reason to believe that it _is_ the
case, just waving 'perhaps'. Advertisers use the term 'weasel'
for such phrases. They don't actually say anything -- as _anything_
can be 'perhaps'. 'perhaps' the martians made it happen -- has
no more, nor less, scientific merit than his actual statement.

One of the things I found interesting about this post from Grumbine is
his apparent notion that it's "normal" for folks to gloss over the
actual words used. I have several times noted that some posters here
seem to imagine exclamation marks being used where question marks are
much closer to what's actually written. Comparing Grumbine's take
("[Schulin's 'weasel' words] don't actually say anything") to Hays' take
("[Schulin casts] unreasonable doubt"), I find Grumbine's to be much
more reasonable in this case. I recall many replies here over the years,
to articles written by folks alarmed by CO2, which exclusively
highlighted the weasel words contained therein. To me, that type of
attentiveness reflects a "normal" reading, and I don't apologize for
writing with them in mind rather than the glossers.

Joy to the world, at Christmas and throughout the year,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article ,
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

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.

Well, I was just using "theory" in the same sense as you seemed to use
it in the previous post.

... 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. ...

The isotopic evidence reflects the increased emissions, but it doesn't
tell us why the natural processes vary. The throughput of the processes
dwarf the anthropogenic emissions in magnitude. I think its reasonable
to say that small changes in the processes can obviously be more
important than large changes in anthropogenic emissions.

... 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. ...

Actually, it was my way of showing disgust with the alarmist spin which
dominated the publicity related to the recent ice core paper. You are
correct in recalling that I do not take it as proven that the ice cores
are properly dated. It is not in the least two-faced, however, to pose
the "if, then" type of reasoning which I have done.

... 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? ...

It's an "if, then", conditional argument.

... 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?

Accept? It depends. Embrace? No.

...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 first IPCC pointed to the CO2-temperature correlation from the
then-extant ice core record as policy relevant. Live and learn, eh? The
alarmist icons drop like flies, and many appear wont to forget. What
will be the next icon? Perhaps a narrowing down of the best guess on
climate sensitivity value will be portrayed as a kind of bullseye?

... 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.

That's a fair argument, and if the articles about the recent ice core
findings had a bottom line like yours, I probably wouldn't even have
brought up the issue of the observed lag of CO2 rise after temperature
rise.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article vApqf.934$AP5.273@edtnps84,
"Coby Beck" wrote:

"Eric Swanson" wrote...
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.

That's a fair point to raise, Coby. But I urge you to think in terms of
the question "What would the CO2 concentration be today if we had not
been burning carbon-based fuels during industrial era? Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range. But if
there's a process change now like might have been the cause of the
observed 800-1,000-year lag, even the 67-year value would be overly
pessimistic.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range.

Bogus assumption/no sign of learning. There is no single lifetime of
CO2 in the atmosphere, as the IPCC points out. There are many
processes that remove CO2 from the air, into many different carbon
stores, and most of these processes are reversable.

But then we didn't think that Steve was here to learn. He seems to be
here to present bogus assumptions, bad logic, misleading distractions
and astrology.


--
Caution: Contents may contain sarcasm.
Phil Hays

In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range.

Bogus assumption/no sign of learning. There is no single lifetime of
CO2 in the atmosphere, as the IPCC points out. ...

Well, if you can imagine a global mean temperature, surely you can
understand the difference between atmospheric lifetime value closer to
50 years than to 200 years (as presented in he SAR), or between
atmospheric lifetime value closer to 5 years than to 200 years. (as
presented in the TAR).

... There are many
processes that remove CO2 from the air, into many different carbon
stores, and most of these processes are reversable.

Very true.

But then we didn't think that Steve was here to learn. He seems to be
here to present bogus assumptions, bad logic, misleading distractions
and astrology.

Well I'm sorry if Phil has been misled. I've tried to help him
understand so much. I am glad that he doesn't seem to give any credence
to the most alarmist claims, like the WHO claim that global warming is
already killing 160,000 people each year.

Joy to the world, at Christmas and throughout the year,

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:

Phil Hays wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range.

Bogus assumption/no sign of learning. There is no single lifetime of
CO2 in the atmosphere, as the IPCC points out. ...

Well, if you can imagine a global mean temperature, surely you can
understand the difference between atmospheric lifetime value closer to
50 years than to 200 years (as presented in he SAR), or between
atmospheric lifetime value closer to 5 years than to 200 years. (as
presented in the TAR).

... There are many
processes that remove CO2 from the air, into many different carbon
stores, and most of these processes are reversable.

Very true.

Good start. Then let me if you can continue. To talk about CO2 as
having a single "lifetime" is too simple of a model. This is why:

The exchange of carbon as CO2 with the mixed layer of the oceans has a
very short time scale, on the order of years. This process is
reversible by just reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

The sequestration of carbon in silicate rock weathering has a longer
time scale, on the order of 100,000 years. This process is not
directly reversible, but is reversed by plate tectonics.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a few years, we
would see mostly the results of the first process. We would measure a
"lifetime" less than a decade.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a million years, we
would see mostly the results of the second process. We would measure
a "lifetime" on the order of 100,000 years.

With just these two processes, there would no single lifetime for CO2.
The "lifetime" we would measure would depend on how long of time
period we looked at. Of course, reality is more complex than this.
But that doesn't change the conclusion. There is no single lifetime
for CO2.


--
Phil Hays

In article ,
Phil Hays wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:
Phil Hays wrote:
Steve Schulin wrote:

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range.

Bogus assumption/no sign of learning. There is no single lifetime of
CO2 in the atmosphere, as the IPCC points out. ...

Well, if you can imagine a global mean temperature, surely you can
understand the difference between atmospheric lifetime value closer to
50 years than to 200 years (as presented in he SAR), or between
atmospheric lifetime value closer to 5 years than to 200 years. (as
presented in the TAR).

... There are many
processes that remove CO2 from the air, into many different carbon
stores, and most of these processes are reversable.

Very true.

Good start. Then let me if you can continue. To talk about CO2 as
having a single "lifetime" is too simple of a model. This is why:

The exchange of carbon as CO2 with the mixed layer of the oceans has a
very short time scale, on the order of years. This process is
reversible by just reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

The sequestration of carbon in silicate rock weathering has a longer
time scale, on the order of 100,000 years. This process is not
directly reversible, but is reversed by plate tectonics.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a few years, we
would see mostly the results of the first process. We would measure a
"lifetime" less than a decade.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a million years, we
would see mostly the results of the second process. We would measure
a "lifetime" on the order of 100,000 years.

With just these two processes, there would no single lifetime for CO2.
The "lifetime" we would measure would depend on how long of time
period we looked at. Of course, reality is more complex than this.
But that doesn't change the conclusion. There is no single lifetime
for CO2.

Gee whiz, Phil. I have repeatedly specified the timeframe I'm
discussing. It is the timeframe relevant to such questions as whether
anthropogenic emissions will result in doubled atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 in policy-relevant period.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
In article vApqf.934$AP5.273@edtnps84,
"Coby Beck" wrote:

"Eric Swanson" wrote...
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.

That's a fair point to raise, Coby. But I urge you to think in terms of
the question "What would the CO2 concentration be today if we had not
been burning carbon-based fuels during industrial era?

This is of course a hypothetical question, but nevertheless, absent any
observed mechanism of flow in or out of the atmosphere and given the
stability of CO2 levels since finishing the last climb out of glacial lows,
I see no reason to suppose it would not have stayed stable around ~280ppm.
Look at the stability of CO2 in the 600-1000 yrs after the Holocene Climatic
Optimum, perhaps a period as warm as today. There was no rise then AFAIU.

Well, I have done a bit of googling on CO2 in the Holocene and came across
this:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/19/12011
"Abstract: By applying the inverse relation between numbers of leaf stomata
and atmospheric CO2 concentration, stomatal frequency analysis of fossil
birch leaves from lake deposits in Denmark reveals a century-scale CO2
change during the prominent Holocene cooling event that occurred in the
North Atlantic region between 8,400 and 8,100 years B.P. In contrast to
conventional CO2 reconstructions based on ice cores from Antarctica,
quantification of the stomatal frequency signal corroborates a distinctive
temperature–CO2 correlation. Results indicate a global CO2 decline of 25 ppm
by volume over 300 years. This reduction is in harmony with observed and
modeled lowering of North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures associated with
a short-term weakening of thermohaline circulation."

Skimming through that and noting references to conclusions of other papers
it appears that CO2 has fluctuated up and down between 275 and 325ppm with
things like the 8200yr cooling event and the LIA. But I note that this is a
short term response and not a 600-1000yr lagged response to a more
persistent trend like in the glacial cycles. It would appear that ice core
records tend to smooth over these short term flucuations as I have heard you
saying before.

So back to the hypothetical question: let's say that everything else is the
same (ie temperature has risen just as it has in reality) except no
anthropogenic CO2 or CH4 emissions. I would then expect CO2 to have risen
since 1900 by about 20-30ppm. I confess I did not read the paper or
references closely enough to know if I should add a lagtime of nothing,
decades or centuries to that expectation, probably many decades or a
century, which would lower the level we should see today. So if you can set
up an alternate planet and run the experiment, I will bet we should be
around 290ppm in 2000 absent fossil fuel burning.

Now back to the glacial record. ISTM that this record shows long term CO2
response to persistent temperature trends over multi-century time frames and
therefore offers us no insight into what the MWP might have to do with CO2
today. The MWP, the LIA and today's GW (thus far) are not long term enough
changes to show in the glacial record.

Even a small
change in that expected value could have a big effect on narrowing down
the uncertainty in atmospheric lifetime value assigned to CO2. The
alarmists typically refer to a century or more. I've seen the data fit
to a 67-year value. IPCC presents an even wider possible range. But if
there's a process change now like might have been the cause of the
observed 800-1,000-year lag, even the 67-year value would be overly
pessimistic.

I have to confess I do not follow you here at all.

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

Steve Schulin wrote:

Phil Hays wrote:

To talk about CO2 as
having a single "lifetime" is too simple of a model. This is why:

The exchange of carbon as CO2 with the mixed layer of the oceans has a
very short time scale, on the order of years. This process is
reversible by just reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

The sequestration of carbon in silicate rock weathering has a longer
time scale, on the order of 100,000 years. This process is not
directly reversible, but is reversed by plate tectonics.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a few years, we
would see mostly the results of the first process. We would measure a
"lifetime" less than a decade.

If we tried to measure the "lifetime" of CO2 over a million years, we
would see mostly the results of the second process. We would measure
a "lifetime" on the order of 100,000 years.

With just these two processes, there would no single lifetime for CO2.
The "lifetime" we would measure would depend on how long of time
period we looked at. Of course, reality is more complex than this.
But that doesn't change the conclusion. There is no single lifetime
for CO2.

Gee whiz, Phil. I have repeatedly specified the timeframe I'm
discussing. It is the timeframe relevant to such questions as whether
anthropogenic emissions will result in doubled atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 in policy-relevant period.

Don't confuse reality with your interests. The assumption of a
single "lifetime" does not allow for measuring the real parameters of
the system. This has nothing to do with the use of estimates of these
parameters for policy.


--
Phil Hays