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