Nir Shaviv on “More Slurs from RealClimate.org”
Posted by Paul, March 13th, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.
A recap. According to realclimate.org, everything my “skeptic” friends and I say about the effect of cosmic rays and climate is wrong. In particular, all the evidence summarized in the box below is, well, a figment in the wild imagination of my colleagues and I. The truth is that the many arguments trying to discredit this evidence simply don’t hold water. The main motivation of these attacks is simply to oppose the theory which would remove the gist out of the arguments of the greenhouse gas global warming protagonists. Since there is no evidence which proves that 20th century warming is human in origin, the only logically possible way to convict humanity is to prove that there is no alternative explanation to the warming (e.g., see here). My motivation (as is the motivation of my serious colleagues) is simply to do the science as good as I can.
A brief summary of the evidence for a cosmic ray climate link:
Svensmark (1998) finds that there is a clear correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Since the time he first discovered it, the correlation continued as it should (Svensmark, 2007). Here is all the other evidence which demonstrates that the observed solar/cloud cover correlation is based upon a real physical link.
1) Empirical Solar / CRF / Cloud Cover correlation: In principle, correlations between CRF variations and climate does not necessarily prove causality. However, the correlations include telltale signatures of the CRF-climate link, thus pointing to a causal link. In particular, the cloud cover variations exhibit the same 22-year asymmetry that the CRF has, but no other solar activity proxy (Fichtner et al., 2006 and refs. therein). Second, the cloud cover variations have the same latitudinal dependence as the CRF variations (Usoskin et al. 2004). Third, daily variations in the CRF, and which are mostly independent of the large scale activity in the sun appear to correlated with cloud variations as well (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006).
2) CRF variations unrelated to solar activity: In addition to solar induced modulations, the CRF also has solar-independent sources of variability. In particular, Shaviv (2002, 2003a) has shown that long term CRF variations arising from passages through the galactic spiral arms correlate with the almost periodic appearance of ice-age epochs on Earth. On longer time scales, the star formation rate in the Milky Way appears to correlate with glacial activity on Earth (Shaviv, 2003a), while on shorter time scale, there is some correlation between Earth magnetic field variations (which too modulate the CRF) and climate variability (Christl et al. 2004).
3) Experimental Results: Different experimental results (Harrison and Aplin, 2001, Eichkorn et al., 2003, Svensmark et al. 2007) demonstrate that the increase of atmospheric charge increases the formation of small condensation nuclei, thus indicating that atmospheric charge can play an important role (and bottleneck) in the formation of new cloud condensation nuclei.
4) Additional Evidence: Two additional results reveal consistency with the link. Yu (2002), carried out a theoretical analysis and demonstrated that the largest effect is expected on the low altitude clouds (as is observed). Shaviv (2005) empirically derived Earth’s climate sensitivity through comparison between the radiative forcing and the actual temperature variations. It was found that if the CRF/cloud cover forcing is included, the half dozen different time scales which otherwise give inconsistent climate sensitivities, suddenly all align with the same relatively low climate sensitivity, of 0.35±0.09°K/(W/m2).
A brief summary of why the attacks on the CRF/climate link are toothless:
1. The CRF / cloud cover link breaks down after 1994 (e.g., Farrar 2000). This supposed discrepancy arises because of a cross-satellite calibration problem in 1994. The problem is evident when considering for example the high altitude cloud data, which exhibits a jump larger than the variability before or after 1994. When the calibration problem is rectified, the significant CRF / cloud correlation continues unhindered (Marsh & Svensmark, 2003).
2. Large variations Earth’s magnetic field (for example, the Laschamp event and alike) should manifest themselves as climate variations. Their absence contradicts the CRF/cloud-cover link (e.g., Wagner et al. 2001). In principle, terrestrial magnetic field variations should indeed give rise to a temperature change, however, when the effect is quantified, the expected global temperature variations are found to be only of order 1°C (Shaviv 2005). This should be compared with the typically 5°C observed over the relevant time scales, of 104-105 yr. In other words, it is not trivial to find the CRF/climate signatures as is often presumed, but signatures do exist (e.g., Christl et al. 2004).
3. The Cloud cover data over the US (Udelhofen & Cess, 2001) or the cloud data following the Chernobyl accident (Sloan & Wolfendale 2007) does not exhibit variations expected from the CRF/cloud-cover link. These expectations rest on the assumption that the CRF climate link should operate relatively uniformly over the globe. However, the lower troposphere over land is filled with naturally occurring CCNs, such as dust particles. Thus, one would expect the link to operate primarily in the clean marine environments.
4. The secular solar activity is now decreasing, but the temperature is increasing. Hence, solar activity cannot be responsible for the recent temperature increase (Lockwood 2007). Indeed, the last solar cycle was weaker, and the associated CRF decrease was smaller. However, this argument assumes that there must be an instantaneous relation between solar activity and climate. In reality, the large heat capacity of the oceans acts as a “low pass filter” which releases previously absorbed heat. Moreover, heat absorbed over longer durations penetrates deeper into the oceans and thus requires longer durations to leave the system. This implies that some of the temperature increase is due to a previous “commitment”. In any case, some of the warming over the 20th century is certainly human. So having some human contribution does not invalidate a large solar forcing.
5. The work of Shaviv & Veizer (2003) was proven wrong. The work of Shaviv & Veizer attracted two published criticisms (Royer et al. 2004 and Rahmstorf et al. 2004). The first was a real scientific critic, where it was argued that the 18O/16O based temperature reconstructions (of Veizer et al. 2000) has an unaccounted systematic error, due to ocean pH, and hence the atmospheric pCO2 level. Shaviv (2005) considered this effect and showed that instead of an upper limit to the effect of CO2 doubling, of 1°C, Earth’s sensitivity increases to 1-1.5°C, but the basic conclusion that CRF appears to be the dominant climate driver remains valid (as later independently confirmed by Wallman 2004). Rahmstorf et al. 2004 published a comment stating that almost all Veizer and I did was wrong. We showed in our response why every comment is irrelevant or invalid. In their response to the rebuttal, Rahmstorf et al. did not address any of our rebuttal comments (I presume because they could not). Instead, they used faulty statistics to demonstrate that our results are statistically insignificant. (Basically, they used Bartlett’s formula for the effective number of degrees of freedom in a limit where the original derivation breaks down).
Anyway, the last slur says that my astronomical analysis is wrong. Well, I’ve got news. The argument raised by Jahnke and Benestad is irrelevant. It has two grave flaws to it.
First, the Milky way is not a typical two spiraled armed galaxy. It has four spiral arms. You can see them in a CO doppler map here. (Well, at least 3 arms separated by 90°. And unless the Milky Way is an amputee, a 4th should be behind the center of the galaxy). J & B also failed to tell their readers that all the 5 galaxies in the work they cited have a very dominant 2 armed structure. I wonder why they kept this detail to themselves. Thus, the conclusions of Krantz et al. 2003, as interesting as they are, are simply not applicable for the Milky Way.
Second point. Spirial arms can exist between the inner and outer Lindblad resonances (e.g., the galactic dynamics bible of Binney and Tremaine). If you force the 4 armed pattern to have a co-rotation radius near us (as J & S do), it will imply that the outer extent of the 4-armed pattern should be at roughly rout ~ 11 kpc. However, the patten is seen to extend out to about twice the solar-galactic radius (Shaviv, 2003 and references therein). Clearly, this would counter our theoretical understanding of spiral density waves.
Thus, B & J were wrong in their claims. Nevertheless, it turns out that surprisingly, they were not totally incorrect. Sounds strange? Well, it appear that the Milky Way has at least two independent sets of spiral arms, with two different pattern speeds. One is the above four spiral arms, which we traverse every 145 Myr on average. The second set is probably a two armed set which has a co-rotation radius near us (and hence we pass through it very rarely). This can be seen by carrying out a birth-place analysis of open clusters, as Naoz and Shaviv (2006) did. This result explains why over the years, different researchers tended to find two different pattern speeds, or evidence that we’re located near the co-rotation radius. We are, but not for the 4-armed spiral structure which we pass every 145 Myrs on average!
Incidentally, this is not the first time Jahnke tried to discredit my results. The previous time was when he unsuccessfully tried to debunk my meteoritic analysis. I wonder if this time was too prompted by a request from Stefan Rahmstorf.
To summarize, using the final paragraph of Jahnke and Benestad, we can say that:
Remarkably, the poor scientific basis of the attacks against the galactic cosmic ray hypothesis seems to be inversely related to the tenacity of the devout global warming protagonists all with a strong thrust of wanting to cast doubt on the possibility that natural climate drivers may have been important to 20th century temperature change.
From Nir Shaviv’s Sciencebits blog: ‘More slurs from realclimate.org’
References:
Christl M. et al., J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys., 66, 313, 2004
Eichkorn, S., et al., Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 44, 2003
Farrar, P. D., Clim. Change, 47, 7, 2000
Fichtner, H., K. Scherer, & B. Heber, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 6, 10811, 2006
Lockwood, M., & C. Fröhlich, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/ rspa.2007.1880; 2007
Harrison, R. G., and K. L. Aplin, Atmospheric condensation nuclei formation and high energy radiation, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 63, 1811–1819, 2001.
Harrison, R. G. and Stepehnson, D. B., Proc. Roy. Soc. A., doi:10.1098/rspa.2005.1628, 2005
Marsh, N., and H. Svensmark, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4195, 2003
Naoz, S. and N. J. Shaviv, New Astronomy 12, 410, 2007
Rahmstorf, S. et al., Eos, Trans. AGU, 85(4), 38, 41, 2004. And the rebuttals
Royer, D. L. et al., GSA Today, 14(3), 4, 2004. And the rebuttals
Shaviv, N. J., New Astron., 8, 39–77, 2003a.
Shaviv, N. J., J. Geophys. Res.-Space, 108 (A12), 1437, 2003b
Shaviv, N. J., J. Geophys. Res., 110, A08105, 2005
Shaviv, N. J., and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 13(7), 4, 2003
Sloan, T., and A. W. Wolfendale, in Proceedings of the ICRC 2007 (also arXiv:0706.4294 [astro-ph])
Udelhofen, P. M., and R. D. Cess, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2617, 2001
Usoskin, I. G., N. Marsh, G. A. Kovaltsov, K. Mursula and O. G. Gladysheva, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L16109, 2004
Shaviv, N. J., and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 13(7), 4, 2003
Svensmark, H., Phys. Rev. Lett, 81, 5027, 1998
Svensmark, H., Astron. Geophys., 58, 1.19-1.24., 2007
Veizer, J., Y. Godderis, and L. M. Francois, Nature, 408, 698, 2000
Wagner et al., J. Geophys. Res., 106, 3381, 2001
Wallman, K., Geochem. Geophys. Geosys, 5, Q06004, 2004
Yu, F., J. Geophy. Res., 107(A7), 10.1029/2001JA000248, 2002.
A consensus ? LOL
Luke you made the claim so prove it.
Jan, he doesn’t have to. He just knows intuitively that it will. In the wonderland of climate alarmism, if you just Believe, then it’s true.
Thanks Bruce I stand corrected.
Well in the world of deranged denialism one knows by now that it’s futile as you guys never acknowledge anything; scan the literature for any snippet to support your POV despite how prototypical or unconfirmed, how local it may be, or having truck wide error bars; never a criticise a fellow denialist even if they are nuts and are sprouting crap; have multiple contradictory internally inconsistent theories on climate – almost like world religions – and you’d like to now go over all over the last few years of blogging on greenhouse again. Don’t think so matey.
What a bunch of cheats and crooks. Talk about “belief” – you lot have decided on day #1 you did not like the science and have constructed a campaign of conspiracy to discredit it on political grounds.
Jan has well demonstrated on here that he’s been the artful dodger and bluffer who refuses to engage one bit off his single track. So he’s a time wasting troll as the last 150 thread poster well demonstrated.
Luke:Jan has well demonstrated on here that he’s been the artful dodger and bluffer who refuses to engage one bit off his single track. So he’s a time wasting troll as the last 150 thread poster well demonstrated.
Just goes to show what happens when one argues with idiots I had to deal with a few there you among them.
Now back to your own dodge
Luke:At some point some greenhouse feedback will kick in.
Prove it.
Mate after your demonstrated silliness on the Beers Lambert business I think we know enough. Thanks for your two bobs worth. Now time to get back to cleaning the wards.
Enough of an answer is that you can’t achieve the degree of warming without it. So unless you want to invoke garden gnomes and pixie dust (CRF??) you have a problem. Now you can go and research that when you get off duty.
Luke:Mate after your demonstrated silliness on the Beers Lambert business I think we know enough
thank you for your concession that you did not understand it at all.
Well it does help if you’re discussing the right equation. I think we now know well enough about our Pompous Pomp.
“Well it does help if you’re discussing the right equation”
I did you could not understand why and that’s right that’s your problem
Luke said, “At some point some greenhouse feedback will kick in.” He’s been asked for proof several times, and so far all he’s done is obfuscate and dodge the question, proving he’s both a fraud and an idiot. What a surprise.
Gosh Luke in all that wandering muse of yours.You never discussed this section I wrote:
“We are at a historic LOW in CO2 atmospheric levels.Over 95% of earths history it has been well over 1000 ppm. Two of the ice ages occurred during periods of HIGH CO2 atmospheric levels.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas has NEVER been a significant factor in promoting warming.
We have a number of published science papers.Cuncluding that CO2 increase FOLLOWS temperature increase AND decrease.Usually on the order of many centuries.It has happened EVERY TIME!
Meaning that something else was causing the planets temperature to go up and down.”
Have you bothered to read about the minimal CO2 absorption bands in the IR spectrum?
Here is a choice quote for you to mull over:
“As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth. In reality the two peaks at the left lie in a range where there is very little energy in the black body spectrum, and could be discarded without much change in the outcome, but we’ll leave them in just to be generous.”
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Jim_Peden
CO2 promotes so little warming.It is amazing that so many still drool over it.
“Climate Audit was the winner for best science blog for 2007.” I thought popularity votes had nothing to do with science.
Never did I state in that way.You thought of it all by yourself.You still do not understand why I answered Luke.
Congratulations!
Oh they’re all still here rabbiting on. I didn’t answer Jan as he’s demonstrated troll-like tendencies.
Anyway I’ve already answered you – numb nutties pay attention – you don’t get the magnitude of warming without it. Pure physics I’m afraid.
And yes CO2 has been a factor in leading some warming events – you go research the various historical perturbations and report back.
But yes in the relatively recent series of interglacials of course CO2 wouldn’t be leading any warming. Are you mental? And CO2 ain’t the only game in town over paleo history.
Don’t bother with the all the drivel about saturation, enough bands and all that jazz – if you haven’t dispatched the against argument for all that in your rant – you’re asleep or ignorant. Funny that the measured increase in longwave is about right too. Inconvenient what?
Dudes this blog has been around 3 years or so – we’ve been over all this stuff about 20 times. If you’re going to have a go – at least list the anti-arguments and why they don’t work otherwise you’re just regurgitating the same old bilge.
Luke: I didn’t answer Jan as he’s demonstrated troll-like tendencies.
Luke do you honestly think that anyone believes that? The reality is that you can’t prove your assertion, you simply don’t know how.
As for the “troll like tenedencies” remark – that’s turnspeak.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/turnspeak.html
You’ve got your answers mate – your turn. Show us how you can get the degree of interglacial warming without CO2 feedback and spare us the bulldust.
Luke:Show us how you can get the degree of interglacial warming without CO2 feedback and spare us the bulldust.
You made the assertion now you support it. You claim there is feedback in the interglacial warming so show us how much it is.
You are aware no doubt that making topic changing unsupported statements and expecting others to prove them wrong is troll like behaviour. You have also indulged in attempts at bullying and other personal attacks – more troll activities.
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/antitrollfaqhtm.htm
“”At some point some greenhouse feedback will kick in.” Here – I’ll start it off for you Luke: And the proof is….
ooooo – such snappy little denialists – you’ve had your answer dillberries and you never responded. You can’t drive the temperatures high enough without it. Surely you’re familair with the relevant work?
Luke: you’ve had your answer
You are right we’ve had our answer and that answer is that you can’t answer. We know that but you seem to be having difficulty with it.
PETM.
PETM?
now really Luke you think a brief spike that no one can determine the reason for (yes there is heaps of speculation but nothing even close to conclusive or even highly probable) is proof?
Bear in mind that we had glaciation at higher CO2 levels (Ordivician) than at PETM. The higher levels of CO2 AND CH4 did nothing to prevent recovery.
CO2 levels follow temperature yes there are some theories about concerning positive feedback but so far the only feedback that has come close to being demonstrated and quantified has been negative (Spender et al 2007).
For the proposed CH4 clathrate meltdown there had to be some serious warmth on the sea bed some 5C as I remember it for it to even start.
Sorry Luke it doesn’t fly.
Well you tell me what insolation levels you had in the Ordovician with what continental alignments. Sorry doesn’t fly and a bail out.
Mate the PETM is well documented.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587 so don’t try to bluster.
“The volcanic province (thousands of flows and intrusive equivalents) was not emplaced instantaneously, but over 6 million years (61-55 Ma). Moreover, much of it was was continental (emplaced above sea level over East Greenland and the Faeroes). There was a surge in activity at around 56 Ma, due to the final rupturing of the continent – allowing the mantle to rise to a shallow level, and resulting in a large amount of melting due to decompression. It was this surge in magmatism that appears to have triggered the PETM – however, NOT by heating the oceans, or by directly contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most likely explanation is that sills (intrusive lavas) cooked organic rich sediments in basins, releasing thermally produced methane. This was proposed by Svensen et al in Nature 2004 – they seismically imaged hundreds of vent (gas release) structures coming from sills emplaced in the Vøring Basin off the west coat of Norway. Later work has shown similar structure in other sedimentary basins that 55 million years ago would have been proximal to the developing rift between Greenland and Europe.
It would be rather like placing a giant hotplate beneath the North Sea today
— the sills were the hotplates 55 million years ago.
We know from the ocean sedimentary record that the release of greenhouse gases (and the increase in ocean temperature) occurred in less than 20,000 years. The start of the breakup-related surge in magmatism appears to closely correspond in time with the release of greenhouse gases — indicating a trigger mechanism for the PETM and supporting the Svenensen et al idea. It took 100,00 to 200,000 years for ocean temperatures to drop down to the value preceding the event. So 20 ky to warm , 100-200 ky to recover.
Of course we may have another case with the Deccan Traps
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/07-59.htm
But that was just to warm you up.
The best indication is that you can’t get the right length on the MIS11 interglacial without a phased interplay between insolation and CO2. It comes up short. Neat don’t you think – inverse direction shows the issue brilliantly. I’m sure you’re familiar with the work.
Yeah Luke,
they are still playing around with hypotheses as data accumulates but they haven’t really got beyond that. There is to this day no physical causative link observable between temperature and CO2 except that Temperature leads CO2 both rising and falling. We all know that cause can not follow effect.
So what if they have a new prime suspect (volcanoes in India) it’s still not a proven culprit.
Oh that’s utterly pathetic Jan – given a really good reponse – you answer is “nuh”. What a troll.
Your best analogue with present – the stade terminates early on insolation. The fact you wouldn’t even look puts you in the religious denialist class.
Luke:Oh that’s utterly pathetic Jan
Your response was pathetic and not entirely unexpected in the case you answered at all. It was wordy though I’ll give you that.
You didn’t get a simple ‘no’ you got my reasons for saying ‘no’ as well. I had already looked a the ‘facts’ the suppositions and hypotheses before. It really hasn’t got beyond that so it does not in any wise give us any reason to suppose that:
“At some point some point greenhouse feedback *will* kick in.” Emphasis mine.
You have very good answer – but unread by you – various works demonstrate warming from massive releases of greenhouse gases and very good modelling work on the interplay of CO2 and insolation on glacial/interglacial sequences. So when answered as I suspected – you just stonewalled and said “nuh”. Not “nuh” because (a) (b) and (c) – just “nuh”. No response – no argument – just “nuh”.
The only thing that would satisfy you is a Tardis.
various works demonstrate warming from massive releases of greenhouse gases
Only trouble is the warming comes first.
Perhaps you need a TARDIS.
Not in all of them Try opening your eyes mate. Don’t be totally stupid now. PETM is obvious.
I mean what are you going to invoke – a Sun that suddenly goes berserk for 20,000 years.
And our analogous MIS11 stade terminates early with just insolation.
Stop bolshing and start arguing.
Luke:a Sun that suddenly goes berserk for 20,000 years.
That’s more your style Luke but let’s look at on paper near the beginning:
A *possible* trigger for the initiation of the PETM…
and at the end:
“We *suggest* … triggered the PETM event, *probably* via the release of 12C-enriched methane …”
I’ve highlighted the operative words with asterisks do you understand what it means? When did ’suggest’ change to ‘assert’, and, ‘possibly’ and ‘probably’ change to ‘definitely’ in meaning. I suggest it was a genuflection to AGW theory necessary for the funding but I don’t know for sure.
Just so you do understand.
Did you notice also that it was just as hot 5 million years later with no proposed volcanism or mass extinctions?
Did you also notice that the second article that you offered had to do extinction of dinosaurs 10 M years earlier and really had nothing to do with PETM. This is speculation too but what is interesting is volcanism of a massive scale like the one that is thought to have triggered PETM, yet there is no similar rise in temperature.
In sort people are still guessing about these events even if there is some evidence that the so called GHGs rose around and over the 20,000 years the measurement of the time has error bar 600,000 years years wide. It’s impossible to *know* exactly what the relationship is but more recent studies are quite clear, and they are not at the fuzzy limit of measurability like the PETM. The 800 year lag seen consistently in later times would be buried deep within the error bars as would any lead.
Then you still have the incoherent claims of a 3.7 W/m^2 and ~3K +/- 1.5K for a doubling of CO2 that has yet to be proved.
Not to mention an equally incoherent claim that of the 33K due to GHG 9K is due CO2 for a ~3K +/- 1.5K /2xCO2. Hint for the increment from 1 ppmv to 350 ppmv the concentration doubles 8.45 times so it would have to be 25.4K NOT 9K leaving 7.6K for the major GHG water.
Then there is the added problem that regardless of concentration the maximum portion of up welling radiation CO2 can absorb is around 8% because that is the portion of energy in the band.
There are all these things screaming your hypothesis is nonsense and yet you still believe it.
Oh for heavens sake – you want evidence – there is no absolute proof and you know that – you’d need a Tardis for absolute proof and then you still wouldn’t believe it. Your comment about needed for funding is an absolute disgrace. You haven’t a clue on the motivation of the scientist except to pre-suppose that he’s a genuine researcher. Why would you assume a priori he would simply do this elaborate obscure bit of research just for the funding dollars. Probably explains the motivation of some denialists so it’s extrapolated to everyone else. The fact that you’ve said this says to me it rattled your cage so you’ve gone the ad hom. I have corresponded with Dr Storey and I find your innuendo offensive.
The Deccan traps being a different period – well you must be a genius to work that out. Yes it was “another” “possible” (suggest, probably, maybe, plausible) example.
As for other periods being warmer – gee Jan – ever thought about rate of change being an issue?
As far as error bars are concerned – ever thought about checking the “error bars” on the glacial CO2 lags. Plus or minus 600 years on 800. If you want “consistency” at least be consistent looking for error.
Loulergue, L et al. (2007) New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr. Climate of the Past, 3, 527-540.
Here we bring new constraints to test a firn densification model applied to the EPICA Dome C (EDC) site for the last 50 kyr, by linking the EDC ice core to the EPICA Dronning Maud Land (EDML) ice core, both in the ice phase (using volcanic horizons) and in the gas phase (using rapid methane variations). We also use the structured 10Be peak, occurring 41 kyr before present (BP) and due to the low geomagnetic field associated with the Laschamp event, to experimentally estimate the 1ag during this event. Our results seem to reveal an overestimate of the lag by the firn densification model during the last glacial period at EDC. Tests with different accumulation rates and temperature scenarios do not entirely resolve this discrepancy. Although the exact reasons for the lag overestimate at the two EPICA sites remain unknown at this stage, we conclude that current densification model simulations have deficits under glacial climatic conditions. Whatever the cause of the 1age overestimate, our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature previously inferred for the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) seems to be overestimated.
Finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.
What’s that – in phase or leading !!
And I know you hate real world measurements preferring to stick to your physics lecture notes but the measurements on longwave have been made old son (as tediously previously discussed) so you can theorise all you like. So if you want to argue sensitivity at least look in the right spots like cloud feedbacks.
You’ve also been counseled on bands before too and obviously haven’t listened.
And disappointingly completely ignored the point that the most analogous interglacial terminates early if CO2 does nothing. Sorry it didn’t terminate early!
So all in all no answers from dear Jan – just more obfuscation. Presented with multiple lines of evidence all we get is “nuh”.
Which is why I didn’t bother in the first instance responding to you screaming for “proof” as I figured your trolliness would kick in and we’d just end up with “nuh” as the rebuttal. Actually I don’t think there’s anything that would satisfy you as you’ll always hide behind the sophists’ defence of no such thing as “absolute proof” – so that’s really helpful for either farmers making decisions about future investments or governments trying to decide policy.
Luke If I had the proof I would believe it but you make the point i was making;
“you want evidence – there is no absolute proof and you know that”
I did not give you a simple ‘No’ and you know it that it’s your trollness that causes you to keep on with that lie.
All your references to my supposed trollness is turnspeak).
http://www.israellycool.com/2005/03/13/turnspeak-101/
Now where is that tardis?
Is that it? Really. Another “nuh”.
Spare us the juvenile philosophy Jan and make with the rebuttal – alas you don’t seem to have any.
Two questions never answered by realclimate despite numerous invitations:
1. What peer reviewed publication gives experimental evidence for a rise of X,Y or Z degrees in global surface temperature for at doubling of atmospheric CO2? (So far, no paper found).
2. What change in global atmospheric CO2 is needed to change the acidity of the oceans by 0.1 pH unit? (So far, no paper found with a clear, unambiguous statement).
Without answers to these, one can scarcely make progress on any issues raised at realclimate, with its CO2-centricity.
Luke,
It has never been my understanding of science that a lack of alternatives constitutes proof. Thank you for clarifying this. Here’s another “proof” you might like:
1. We exist
2. We didn’t will ourselves to exist
3. We don’t know who did
4. Therefore God
So keep preaching mate – doomsday is a’comin.