Weather Banter - View Single Post - Greenhouse Gas Level Not 'Natural Cycle' and Highly Correlated With Warm Climates.

Eric Swanson

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 :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------