Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship.  They found that:

  • The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. 
  • This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
  • The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago.  As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls.  This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Shakun Fig 2a 

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots).  Source.

Last updated on 18 June 2014 by dana1981. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Related Arguments

Further reading

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag (thanks to John Mashey for the tip).

Climate 411 have a succinct explanation of the Greenhouse Effect.

Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument: See also my forthcoming paper: "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".

Further viewing

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Comments 201 to 250 out of 445:

  1. This timescale argument is a bit silly. This IS the climate timescale. When I write sudden, I mean sudden in climate terms. Surely that's obvious? What's sudden to the climate of the earth is not sudden to a kitten.
    When you talk about the CO2 supply in the ocean dwindling, and turning off a feedback loop, ten thousand year would be incredibly sudden.
  2. mistermack, what is the basis for your claim that ten thousand years would be an incredibly sudden period for CO2 feedback to dwindle?
  3. mistermack, why are you claiming that the cause of reduced CO2 levels was dwindling of the CO2 content of the ocean? The ocean's role in adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere depends on the temperature, CO2 concentration, and other chemistry in the ocean, but also on temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Unlike in the atmosphere, CO2 in the ocean is not so well mixed, which is why its role in triggering reversal of ice ages seems to hinge on ocean currents bringing CO2-rich water up from the depths. Changes in any of those factors can change the rate at which CO2 outgases from the ocean, and even reverse the direction to absorption. Changes in any of those factors can come from any number of other factors, including change in seasonal insolation due to orbital progression.

    An example is that suggestion of a CO2 burp from the southern ocean being a trigger of at least one particular ice age. Burps have starts and ends. The notion is that deep CO2-rich water upwelled "suddenly." But that would have depleted that deep reservoir of CO2-rich water. So that extraordinarily high rate of CO2 outgassing would have been a "short" duration event.
  4. Tom, I would agree that a "burp" mechanism would be interesting. But it would need to be demonstrated that it could be significant on a global scale, not local. And in that case, you would expect to see a clear signal in the ice cores. I wouldn't discount it as being possibly significant, but it would need more evidence of a worldwide effect.
    I can't visualise a "gulp", working at the top of the cycle though.
  5. Tom, re your previous comments, the ten thousand years was my estimate, snatched out of the air, but bearing in mind that there is an 800 year lag between a temperature rise showing even the slightest rise in CO2 levels.
    How long would it take to significantly reduce CO2 availability in the ocean significantly? Especially as oceans should be significantly warming all the time.
  6. @mistermack: "This timescale argument is a bit silly."

    What is silly is your insistence to ignore all the information we provide you in order to continue pushing your agenda.

    There is a wealth of information for you here, but you are not interested in learning the truth, it seems.

    "When you talk about the CO2 supply in the ocean dwindling, and turning off a feedback loop, ten thousand year would be incredibly sudden."

    Tom explained it quite well. It doesn't mean that there is no more CO2 in the ocean, but that the conditions for the CO2 outgassing are no longer present.

    Again, the fact you don't understand the science doesn't make it invalid. Stop being so arrogantly certain that you hold the truth and start learning some actual science.
  7. Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now, so I'm going to leave you to it. I'm only interested in evidence. You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments. That's a sign of someone who can't debate, and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, but still want's the last word. A clear sign of someone with an agenda.
    Response: Please refrain from making 'ad hominem' accusations when none are actually made. Feel free to disagree, certainly, but be respectful when doing so.
  8. @mistermack: "Archie, you're just basically resorting to adhominems now"

    Yeah, that's what contrarians usually say when they're out of arguments...

    "I'm only interested in evidence."

    ...but only as far as it reinforces your position, it seems. Everyone here treated you nicely and patiently provided counter-arguments, which you choose to ignore.

    "You can hardly speak of me having an agenda, and then make ad hominem comments."

    I (and others here) have been quite patient with you, even when you made an ad hominem attack upon basically everyone who chooses to study in Climate Science, so spare me the fake outrage.

    "That's a sign of someone who can't debate, and doesn't really understand what he's talking about, but still want's the last word. A clear sign of someone with an agenda."

    Wait, are you talking about yourself now? It sure can't be me because: a) I can debate just as well as any other poster here; b) I try to only talk about things I understand, and have no problem admitting when I'm wrong (I've done that a couple of times on this very site); c) doesn't feel the need to have the last word any more than you.

    As for my agenda, it's quite simple: I'm interested in learning more about Climate Change (I learned tremendously here, because unlike you I came with an open mind), and I don't like when I hear the same debunked theories against AGW again and again, especially when we know who's behind the disinformation - not saying you are, of course. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and think you're actually just wrong.

    I apologize if you feel insulted, and I assure you I mean nothing personal by my criticism. I simply ask you in good faith to look on the evidence presented on this site and not simply dismiss it off-hand. That's still the best thing about this place. :-)
  9. Archie, you took to criticising the person, not the argument, in your previous post. That's what I meant.
    I would just say to you, it's a bit like religion. It doesn't matter what you believe, or me. Nor what we say. It won't change the fact. Either warming is mostly man-caused, or it isn't.
    Nothing I say will change that. If you want to achieve a comment section with everone agreeing, it's not going to make great reading. But at least you will have a consensus.
  10. @mistermack: I criticized your behavior, and your insulting insinuations against people who choose to study climate science.

    I did criticize your arguments, but it can get pretty frustrating when one side gives the appearance of not wanting to debate in good faith. People here have been quite patient with you, perhaps you should show the same consideration to others and not take such an adversarial tone, especially when every one of your arguments have been successfully rebutted.

    The goal of this site is not to provide "great reading," it's to present the actual science to those who want to learn more, and to counter the disinformation and bad science spread by a vocal minority on the Internet.

    As far as the consensus goes, I think I made my position clear in the other thread.
  11. Archie, I'm leaving it there. I can't be doing with all this emotional stuff. Bye.
  12. Re: Tom Dayton (149, 203) and mistermack (150, 204)

    Interesting & germane new article out in nature geoscience today, "Southern Ocean source of 14C-depleted carbon in the North Pacific Ocean during the last deglaciation".

    Germane, as it adds weight and evidence to the "burp" mechanism under discussion. Interesting also was the development of neodymium isotope values as a proxy.

    Science Daily write-up here.

    The Yooper
  13. This doesn't really strengthen the sceptic argument, but I've noticed in the graph above that the CO2 timelag is pretty obvious most of the time, EXCEPT for the apparent runaway warming phase, out of the coldest ice-age, right up to the hottestp peaks.
    Maybe it's there, but not obvious in that graph, or maybe there is no lag for that runaway warming phase.
    If so, I would find that very interesting indeed.
    If CO2 doesn't lag temperature for that period, it would seem that something else is causing the release of CO2, maybe on top of the rising temperature.
    Something to do with fresh water meeting saline, perhaps?
  14. I don't buy this theory.

    External event rises temperature.
    Soils and vegetation release co2 in a
    global burnoff. Probably the ocean mass heat memory with
    dissolution is the likely explanation of the centuries delay.

    If co2 amplified minor temp rises then it should be
    in synch without delays of centuries.

    Eventually the temperature goes down and the
    plants etc can reabsorb the gas back to photosynthesis
    equilibrium levels.

    You never get the amplification process because photosynthesis
    is such a dominant process. Perhaps when the conc goes above
    1 per cent is co2 greenhouse effect sufficient to influence temperature.

    Look if co2's lifetime was several centuries then do the
    calculation of 100 years of fossil consumption with 5gt per year
    for the last 20 years.

    What should the co2 concentration be? I don't know the
    mass of co2 in the air currently, but some have done it and say that
    half the mass is missing, ie perhaps a 20 year lifetime, some say 5.
    This stuff is scrubbed from the air.
  15. #214: "... co2 greenhouse effect sufficient to influence temperature."

    Try to substantiate your claims, rather than just make such declarations.

    You might want to do some reading before you engage in so many blanket dismissals. Start here, here and here, then we can talk.
  16. @cgp: "I don't buy this theory."

    I do, as do most people who understand science. You see, the theory has a lot of evidence supporting it. I have yet to see any evidence for your claims.

    I second muoncounter's suggestion: learn more of the actual science before making such unsupported claims.
  17. CO2 is a very SLOW feedback from temperature increase. I dont think any AR4 model include it as a feedback. Actually we do know the mass of CO2 in the air, and yes, nearly half of our emissions are being mopped up - but half arent. However, what happens when the sinks are saturated? What makes you think photosynthesis is dominant over oceans as a CO2 sink? Have you done the maths and if so how does it compare with result of others eg here or here
  18. After reading the three years of arguments relating to this question, I still can't form a definitive conclusion in my simple, non-scientific mind. It seems to me that John Cook's rebuttal is an execellent answer but it doesn't go far enough and raises more questions in my mind.

    It now seems clear that GW is the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere which assisted now by mankind. But the questions are:

    Firstly, what is the mechanism for the reversal of global warming? Is this when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach saturation?

    Secondly, is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere related to the degree or the length of the GW?

    These questions seem critical to me since if there is a saturation level then mankind's addition to the levels or to the speed of accumulation of atmospheric CO2 are irrelevant.
    Response: In the Search field at the top left, type "saturated."
  19. Re: MikeC (218)
    "Firstly, what is the mechanism for the reversal of global warming? Is this when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach saturation?"
    Two part answer to that:

    1. CO2 long-term drawdown is by chemical weathering (hundreds of thousand year timescales) and by biological sequestration (oceanic life forms sinking into the deeps). After CO2 is in the upper atmosphere, residence time is on the order of millennia, essentially. See here and here.

    2. The globe is warming because the Earth's radiation budget is out of balance. All things being equal, as long as mankind is adding sequestered carbon back into the carbon cycle, the energy budget will be imbalanced and the warming will continue. If CO2 emissions were cut to zero and held there, warming would still continue for several decades (due to the thermal lag of the oceans) until an equilibrium was reached.
    "Secondly, is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere related to the degree or the length of the GW?"
    See answer number two above. Then consider this: The GHG effect means adding CO2 will raise temperatures globally. By how much is a function of climate sensitivity. A doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial will yield a temperature increase of about 3 degrees C considering short-term effects (less than 100 years). Long-term feedbacks may add another 2-3 degrees C warming on top of that (withing the next several centuries). Barring some form of Carbon Capture Sequestration (CCS), warming is not a transient effect (no more ice sheet advances for the next 30,000 years).

    A warming/warmer world is here to stay, from the standpoint of human timescales.

    The Yooper
  20. #218: "now seems clear that GW is the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere"

    I wonder how exactly that works. Warming increases CO2? Where does it come from? Why did rapid warming start well after the rapid buildup in atmospheric CO2 that began after WW2?

    Or is that the preconceived notion you came in with?
  21. Unfortunately, this article is in need of some serious revision

    -Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
    -CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone <---weak reasoning!
    -CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

    These points are about as logical as "collect underpants > ? > profit!", where the '?' here is analogous to the middle point above. Obviously change in orbital cycles alone does not account for all temperature fluctuation, and neither does orbital fluctuations + CO2. There are many feedbacks.

    As horrible as it may sound, you can't win them all. CO2 may or may not be causing modern day warming, but if you think you can spin the fact that causation is reversed historically into proof that CO2 is causing warming you're delusional. At the least you should provide some further links to back up the middle point, but really what needs to be done is to change the article to concede that yes, historical causation does support the skeptical side, but may or may not be relevant now that CO2 concentration is being altered by humans as well as the carbon cycle. To claim anything more is extremely disingenuous.
  22. hurleybird

    I'm just a layman, but it appears to me that you would need to refute over 100 years of physics and chemistry to disprove the greenhouse effect.
  23. Hurleybird,

    You need to be more specific in your argument, as your last post contained not a single science-based refutation. "I don't believe it" is not an acceptable response to the role of CO2 as a forcing or feedback, nor does it address the validity of our understanding of Milankovitch Cycles.

    The Earth's tilt towards the sun changes. The planet warms. Warming oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere accelerating the warming process. What part of this do you have a problem with?
  24. I have just noticed this site and will read submissions on it with interest.

    I have a simple question. Dr. Roy Spencer
    [ http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ ]
    who I am sure, needs no introduction, has just posted a comment

    "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record."

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/02/a-challenge-from-dr-roy-spencer/#more-33053

    Any offers for him?
  25. Alleagra,

    Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point.

    How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing.

    I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see...
  26. argument: It's not us

    Geophysical Research Letters
    Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes

    Science
    Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

    argument: Models are unreliable

    Nature Geoscience
    The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes
  27. The It's the Sun argument discussion provides links to 17 more peer-reviewed papers on this topic.
  28. #224: "Show me one peer-reviewed paper ... "

    How about Santer 2003:
    Our study shows that the increase in tropopause height over the second half of the 20th century was predominantly due to human activity, and provides independent support for claims of recent tropospheric warming.

    And Hegerl et al 2011:
    we find that external forcing contributes significantly (p<5%) to the reconstructed long-term variability of winter and spring temperatures and that it is responsible for a best guess of 75% of the observed winter warming since the late seventeenth century. This warming is largely attributable to greenhouse-gas forcing.

    A more appropriate thread for this fish-in-a-barrel is It's not us.
  29. "Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out unicorn farts as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record."

    They can't! It's a conspiracy!
  30. Alleagra,

    Wow, Spencer is doing a merry dance...and the goal posts keep shifting so much and so far that it is a wonder anyone can keep up...perhaps that is the point.

    How about this Spencer....you please show us a peer-reviewed paper (published in a reputable journal please)which demonstrates that most of the observed warming to date is from natural forcing.

    I do know of a paper off the top of my head which addresses his loaded question (sounds like a similar situation to Lindzen cherry-picking 1995 in the HadCRUT record), but I will have look. I suspect Spencer has scoured the literature and carefully formulated his question so as to try and claim a "gotcha". We'll see...

    Oh, already found one, Schwartz et al. (2010):

    ".....and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%."

    And

    "The standard deviation of the difference in temperature over 150-yr intervals for the period (1000–1850) based on the synthesis reconstruction of Juckes et al. (2007) yields 0.2 K, which is 25% of the observed increase in GMST (Fig. 2). Somewhat smaller changes in GMST were found in simulations of the twentieth century with coupled ocean–atmosphere global climate models using estimated natural forcings only (as reported by Solomon et al. 2007, see their Fig. 9.5), which for 19 runs with 5 models yielded a temperature increase of 0.09 K (standard deviation is 0.19 K, maximum is 0.49 K)"

    Spencer might also want to try and explain what is causing the planet to be in a net positive energy imbalance (see Murphy et al. 2009). One cannot blame that on internal climate variability, nor can one blame it on solar. Also from Murphy et al. (2009):

    "After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semi-direct forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ). This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's best estimates but rules out very large negative forcings from aerosol indirect effects."

    Then there is Foster et al. (2010), in which they state:

    "Trenberth et al. [2002] found a residual global mean surface temperature trend of 0.4°C over the period 1977–1998 after ENSO impacts alone are removed. More recently, Thompson et al. [2008] removed an estimate of global temperature variations associated with both ENSO and the so‐called cold ocean/warm land or “COWL” pattern of extratropical temperature variation, and found a residual global mean surface warming of 0.4°C over the 1950–2006 period.

    In all of these previous analyses, ENSO has been found to describe between 15 and 30% of the inter seasonal and longer‐term variability in surface and/or lower tropospheric temperature, but little of the global mean warming trend of the past half century."

    Where the residual refers to the anthropogenic component.

    Trenberth et al. (2002) found that:

    "For 1950–1998, ENSO linearly accounts for 0.06 C of global surface temperature increase."

    And there are more where those came from....what does Spencer think he is trying to pull here? These games being played by those in denial about AGW/ACC (and it seems now that Spencer is officially in denial about AGW) disgust me. Spencer is just providing fodder for the "skeptics", who will lap anything up it seems so long it fits their preconceived (and misguided)ideas.
  31. hey guys, i am an engineer so i am no expert in the field of climate science however i am deeply interested. i take quite a neutral position on whether CO2 is driving the climate, there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media. I was just wondering have you guys seen the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi? he has published quite a few papers. His conclusions are that there is a constantly maintained green house gas factor that cannot be changed with further emissions alone. He claims that there would be an equivalent amount of water vapour withdrawing from the atmosphere as the CO2 rises. I'm interested to hear standpoints on his work. Thanks
  32. #231: "there still seems to be strong scientific debate over the issue"

    It's not really a debate; that would imply some sort of parity between the two sides. If you look around this site for any length of time (and you should), you will quickly realize that most denier positions fall flat on their face.

    "despite being told that 'the science has been settled' by the majority of the media"

    What media do you watch? Most of the media ignores climate change as a political hot potato -- and those who do talk about it feel compelled to pretend it needs a 'fair and balanced' presentation.

    "the work of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi"

    Very convincingly shown to be false here. Before falling for a fringe theory, it would be best to read up on the basics here at SkS. Start with the newcomers guide, then read through the rebuttals to the common skeptic arguments.
  33. I have never heard of Dr. Ferenc Miscolzi and can't find any published work by an author of that name. Can you provide any citations?

    That claim is in direct contradiction to many different lines of empirical evidence.

    argument: CO2 effect is weak

    argument: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
  34. @228 -

    The Santer paper is not good science. How in the world did Science actually publish such a weak, sloppy, illogical mess like that? I am not impressed.

    Is Santer kidding?
    A model-predicted fingerprint [human, I will assume he means] of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) datasets.
    It is a model, folks. Models are not empirical evidence.

    First of all, Santer is using tropopause height as a proxy for, not warming, but he takes it to an unwarranted next step, bypassing the warming itself and going straight to "humans did it."

    His statement should have been in two parts. First it should have said, "We show that tropopause height is a quantifiable proxy for a warming climate," and then he should have shown his evidence that it was humans that caused the tropopause height change. His logic is flawed. His CO2 = humans thinking is getting in the way of his logic.
    Increases in tropopause height over the last several decades have been identified in radiosonde data (2), in observationally-constrained numerical weather forecasts (reanalyses) (3), and in climate models forced by combined natural and
    anthropogenic effects (4).
    Wow. The only empirical evidence here is the first, radiosonde data, and it is only evidence that the tropopause has changed. Nothing in that fact points at humans. The 2nd one is weather forecasts, and forecasts are not empirical evidence. They are guesses. The 3rd is climate models, and models are not empirical evidence, either. So all he is left with is "Weather balloons say the tropopause changed height." That says nothing about humans. To Santer maybe it does, but it isn't scientific to take that quantum leap. Santer: In logic you can't leave steps out.
    Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone (4).
    Again, models are not empirical evidence. They are lines of code and can only give back what is programmed in. GIGO anyone? I am not slurring the modelers intentions, just that they need each physical process to be 100% proven out before they can rely on the output of that portion of the code. And they also need to not include even one code character of supposition or surmise or assumption.
    To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century.
    THIS one is beautiful. Santer here is admitting that as of 2003 no one - I repeat, no one - had done what Dr. Spencer is asking in 2011. So, the first question should be, "Has anyone done it since then?" Of course, in this paper Santer is claiming that he and his cohorts have come to rescue climate science from that oversight.

    But has he?
    We estimate these contributions here, and demonstrate the usefulness of tropopause height as an integrated indicator of human-induced climate change.
    Sorry. Demonstrating based on estimates? Not science. I think he can do better than that.

    Really guys, this is not well done. On this site where you claim to be properly skeptical, you don't let that pass as science, do you?

    And this one in the Abstract caught my eye:
    Tropopause height changes simulated over 1900-1949 are smaller than in recent decades, and are driven largely by variations in volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance.
    I'll even pass on the "simulated" and get to the real goody:

    This is the same solar irradiance that has been shot down as a direct and naturalforcing for warming itself, but it is okay for Santer to drag it out and claim a causal link to tropopause height? For a proxy? Wow. That sure seems to be a double standard. But at the same time, let's see what Santer does with it...

    Okay, he only mentions it twice in the body of the text. The first is
    The natural external forcings considered are changes in solar irradiance (S) and volcanic aerosols (V)
    where he assigns a variable name to it. Okay... No real science there. . .

    Then the last mention of solar irradiance is:
    Solar irradiance changes over the 20th century warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere with offsetting effects on tropopause height.
    First here, let's point out that this is the only meaty (?) use of solar irradiance in the entire paper.

    But this is puzzling. Without any sourcing, he states it as fact, leaving everyone else (I guess) to stipulate that it is an uncontested fact. But, wow. He is giving solar irradiance a power that isn't referenced and a power that isn't allowed to anyone who tries to use it as a direct forcing on climate warming directly, who want to use it as a "natural forcing." They can't use it directly, but he can use it as a forcing - for a proxy - with no demonstrated evidence that it is even really true.

    Do I have that right?

    He can't do that.

    VERY poor logic, sloppy concepting of the paper - what can I say? Terrible...

    And in conclusion, nowhere in it does Santer develop an answer to Dr. Spencer's challenge.

    Models and simulations and estimates - none of them are empirical evidence that does what Santer claims it does.

    Solar irradiance - if he wants to use that for proxies, he has to "show his work," and prove why it is valid to use it. And then allow everyone else to use it.

    Seriously, if I were a grading it as a paper, I'd flunk the dude.
  35. Feet2thefire is plainly in complete ignorance of the logical place of models in science. A model is a set of mathematical formula that encapsulate a combination of known physical laws and some proposed theory. For any models other than the simplest, they need to be run on computers because of the number of calculations involved. For even moderately complex climate models they need to be run on super computers. But that does not change their logical basis.

    Because a model is a set of mathematical formulas encapsulating a theory, the output of a model run is just the prediction of that theory for a given set of initial conditions. (In chaotic systems, its a little more complex than that, but that's basically it.) So, and obviously, model outputs are not evidence. But that does not mean they are irrelevant. When Santer says, "Model experiments suggest that this increase cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.", that means that no theory using natural variability alone as inputs predicts the observed increase in tropopause height.

    Just to make this quite clear. Models (and hence theories) including anthropogenic influences predict the increase in tropopause height. But no model (and hence theory) not including anthropogenic influences predicts the increase in tropopause height. This fact is not, of course, evidence. It is, however, proof that the increase in tropopause height is evidence of anthropogenic influence.

    Feet2thefire's slovenly argument is simply a demand that emperical observations (even if only with radiosonde) be not counted as evidence against theories that don't predict it; and not be counted as evidence for theories that do. It is a de facto demand that science be evidence free.

    I have not gone through all of Feet2thefire's endlessly turgid and repetitive spammed responce. I did note in passing a few blatant errors. Reanalysis is not, for example, weather forcasting. But what struck me most was the obtuse nitpicking. Obtuse because the nitpicks is clearly based on a total failure to understand what is said. They reveal Feet2thefire to be a scientific illiterate.

    Just one example. He picks fault with Santer for saying, "To date, no study has quantified the contributions of different anthropogenic and natural forcing mechanisms to tropopause height changes over the 20th century." (My emphasis) According to him, this is an admission by Santer that as of 2003, nobody had answered Spencer's challenge. But for his responce to make any sense, tropopause height would need to be the only possible signal of anthropogenic climate change.
  36. I keep having a ground hog day.
  37. Bibliovermis - Miskolczi is a crank. You can see a quick summary of what he postulates here
  38. #237 scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 4 February, 2011
    Bibliovermis - Miskolczi is a crank. You can see a quick summary of what he postulates here

    Some may want to check what Dr. Miskolczi (and others) actually say about a possible upper bound on atmospheric IR optical depth due to IR absorber (a.k.a. "greenhouse") gases in a planetary atmosphere with practically infinite potential supply of IR opacity instead of accepting at face value the rather hasty debunking provided by RC Wiki (a supplement to the RealClimate.org community blog).

    Energy & Environment, vol. 21, num. 4, 2010
    ISSN 0958-305X
    Special issue - Paradigms in Climate Research
    Guest Editor: Arthur Rörsch

    Dr. Miskolczi's paper is on page 243, but one may be interested in other papers in the same issue as well.
  39. Berényi Péter #237

    Hasty debunking? What part of the hasty debunking do you disagree with? You do realize that the "RealClimate.org community blog" is a community of practicing climatologists don't you? As for E&E, it is my understanding that it is not a peer review journal and has a rather dubious reputation of publishing less than scholarly science?
  40. #238: "the rather hasty debunking"

    Even Spencer shoots FM down.

    I have spent many hours examining it and thinking about it, ... I disagree with his explanation of why the atmosphere’s total greenhouse effect should remain the same, particularly his use of Kirchoff’s Law of Radiation.

    Doesn't sound hasty.
  41. The guest editorial speaks to the credibility of the journal in general.
    The voices of well known scientists opposed to this dominant paradigm (e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Christy McIntyre, Pielke, Khandakar), and backed by their own research, have been less clearly heard.
    ...
    Doubts about the mainstream "CO2-paradigm" arise because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework that has been constructed from computer model studies/experiments.
    ...
    However, so far, we can see no sign that the protagonists of the IPCC line on expected Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are willing to consider any alternative to the CO2 paradigm.
    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
    I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.


    Over a hundred years of empirical research by thousands of independent scientists merits the term "AGW hypothesis", while a single work that is contradicted by observational records merits "Miskolczi theory"? This is a prime example of a political rather than science-based argument.

    It's amusing that Miskolczi's work, a model based on simulated effects, is being pushed by those who decry the vast bulk of climatological research as invalid for being nothing more than models & simulated effects.
  42. Bibliovermis @241,

    Very interesting (and revealing )post. Regarding this from E&E:

    "The voices of well known scientists opposed to this dominant paradigm (e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Singer, Christy McIntyre, Pielke, Khandakar)".

    McIntyre is not a scientist. And Singer is, well, a scientist for hire it seems, and seems to have some intriguing ideas on climate science. Khandakar is not a prominent climate scientist and of late his reputation has fallen into disrepute in the scientific community. Lindzen's iris hypothesis remains that, a hypothesis.

    The "skeptics" do love to hammer away at the models, forgetting that Pielke, Lindzen, Spencer etc. all use models in their research. Not to mention that one doesn't require a model to estimate climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2.

    And look at all those pejorative words "paradigm", "protagonist", "dominant"....
  43. Albatross... " Lindzen's iris hypothesis remains that, a hypothesis. "

    One could easily qualify that and say that Lindzen's is a hypothesis in tatters.
  44. #239 RickG at 10:17 AM on 4 February, 2011
    You do realize that the "RealClimate.org community blog" is a community of practicing climatologists don't you?

    I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps.

    As for E&E, it is my understanding that it is not a peer review journal

    It is.

    However, neither the Nick Stokes rebuttal at RC Wiki from Jun 2008 nor Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory by Van Dorland & Forster are peer reviewed publications for sure. Therefore citing them here somewhat goes against the rules at this site.
  45. 244 Berényi Péter: I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps.

    So, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Man, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Thibault de Garidel, Jim Bouldin and many others are just climate policy makers. Well, I'm glad we cleared up that bit of information. As for E&E it is not listed by ISI as being a peer review journal and Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a trade journal.

    Again, what do you specifically disagree with in the "hasty debunking"?
  46. BP - Nonetheless the assertions by Nick Stokes are easily checked in a text book. The lack of peer-reviewed rebuttal may have something to do with those who do atmospheric science having better things to do. Get back to me when there is peer-reviewed research (other than E&E) that builds on his paper with empirical results.

    The "peer-review" of E&E allows it to fulfill the function of tobacco science journals. It would be career damaging to publish there and you would be mad to publish a real scientific result there. Pseudo-skeptics strenuously argue that this should not be true, but that is the reality, like or not.
  47. Berenyi Peter @244, I'm just wondering how much peer review you need to recognize that a well known physical law is completely misstated?

    Better yet, what type of peer review can't even recognize the misstatement of a well known physical law?
  48. Berényi Péter at 12:04 PM on 4 February, 2011

    "I do realize it is a community of climate policy makers who try to do some science in their spare time, as they are posting there regularly in office hours. Check the timestamps."


    Oh dear Peter, your prejudices are showing!

    The RealClimate "community" are extraordinarily productive scientists. We could look at the first two on RickG's list just above, for example, and find that Gavin Schmidt has published since 2005 more than 40 papers (in real science journals) which have been cumulatively cited well over 1000 times, and that Michael Mann has published over 40 papers since 2005 that have been cited around 800 times....

    these are truly impressive records of scientific productivity during the period they (and others) have been running RealClimate.org.

    I wonder whether you misunderstand the nature of science in the modern world. Every grant application we write, for example, must include descriptions on how our research results will be disseminated, and the enhancement of public understanding is a fundamental element of the scientists role.

    Schmidt and Mann and the "community" at RealClimate illustrate how a straightforward and honest application to obtaining and disseminating knowledge go hand in hand. And while their "timestamps" indicate that they may fulfill some of their public understand roles during office hours (and why not?) you can be sure that like most scientists that work in the public sphere, they will be doing science outside of office hours too!

    Peter, do we really want our scientists to be "office drones"? Of course not...we want them to be insightful and productuve and their work to be useful and influential....rather like the "community" at RealClimate
  49. #241: "because there is so little evidence from direct observations to support the framework"

    Oh, that's rich. There's so little evidence. Any doubts about the total lack of credibility of the editors of E and E?
  50. Dr. Roy Spencer's rebuttal is also linked at the RC Wiki page.

    It is a bit funny, because he starts by misquoting Dr. Miskolczi.

    “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”

    From a logical point of view it looks like a proposition, does not it?

    However, if the full context is included, it is clearly a definition (of the term "radiative exchange equilibrium").

    “It will be convenient here to define the term radiative exchange equilibrium between two specified regions of space (or bodies) as meaning that for the two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of transport that may be occurring.”

    Now, in logic there is a difference between propositions and definitions. One does not even have to be a climate scientist to see it. Propositions can have a truth value assigned to them, while for a definition it simply does not make sense.

    Shortly afterwards he admits he does not understand a couple of the claims he [Dr. Miskolczi] makes. The actual situation looks worse than that. He does not even seem to be able to tell claims and definitions apart.

    But let us elaborate on the concept "radiative exchange equilibrium" (defined above) some more, just to see how much sense it makes.

    If regions both A and B have uniform, well defined temperatures, radiative exchange equilibrium simply means thermal equilibrium, that is, their temperature is the same (TA = TB). It is not particularly interesting, but neither is it the case for the climate system.

    Although below about 50 km mean free path of air molecules is short compared to their coupling strength to EM radiation background (plenty of collisions occur between absorption/emission events), that is, local temperature is pretty well defined everywhere, temperature distribution is usually far from being uniform.

    One can still define average temperature for regions like that, even if it does not make much sense to compute averages of intensive quantities. However, it looks like a standard practice in climate science and at least for the time being let's go with it.

    Now, for subsystems A and B not in thermal equilibrium themselves it is perfectly possible for them to have the same average temperatures while maintaining a steady nonzero net radiative heat flow between them. It is also possible of course for the two subsystems to have different average temperatures while being in radiative exchange equilibrium (in the sense defined above by Dr. Miskolczi).

    One can not emphasize enough how sharp is the difference between equilibrium and steady states. Unfortunately they are quite often mixed up in climate discussions (even in some peer reviewed pieces).

    I do not know what the actual net radiative heat fluxes are inside the climate system, much less their global averages, but I do see Dr. Spencer attacks a straw man he himself created.

    It would be his personal problem, were his misguided analysis not linked by RC Wiki with no comment whatsoever. This fact alone shows the blog community there is more interested in appearance of debunking than in thorough understanding and well formed argumentation.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us