Hey Guys,
I'm looking for a little help on a couple of questions.
First, when I started reading up on AGW, must have been 20 years ago, I thought a big source of evidence for it was ice core samples showing that CO2 levels more or less matched temperatures. The idea was as CO2 levels rose, temps went up. Though some still say this now, it seems accepted by most on both sides that the CO2 lags the warming by about a 1000 years. The CO2 is, in fact, a product of the warming. My question is, was this fact known by scientists studying ice cores early on, or did they figure it out later?
It seems to me a big part of the original evdence backing GW was the ice core samples showing rising CO2, leads to rising temps. Now that's not the case. It seems like a big piece of evidence is lost here and it's just been brushed aside as no big deal. Maybe I'm wrong.

I believe Dr. Keller was asked a question about this here and he responded, something like, "yes, the warming did cause the CO2. It had to come from somewhere."(not exact quote) That really didn't answer the question for me.

Also, is it true that at the start of the last ice age, CO2 levels were higher than today? I saw that written somewhere today.
Thanks guys.

Brett,

...especially since several of our regular commentators are getting in the constant habit of posting localized daily weather observations, which really mean very little, if anything, when you are looking at overall global climate trends, and I know most of you are fully aware of that already.

Just taking advantage of the cold weather just as the AGW zealots do every summer. Besides it's fun!! Poking fun at the zealots, that is.

You're right, Brett. Between the snow in Florida, and the voice of Jesus in the back of my head telling me that I can do no wrong, I'm now satisfied that I've been nothing but a fear mongering socialist who's simply out to tell Patrick Henry whether he can keep using his coal fired computer to post links on your site:)

Have a good time at Tussey Mountain. I used to ski there myself.

Seriously, though. The columnist Thomas Friedman, who I usually think is a little behind the curve (it took him 500 pages to say that the Indian sub-continent now has access to email) might be right on this one: he says that "global warming" sounds too friendly. (In fact, I have heard people make cavalier statements on this board about how they wish it were warmer in places like Pittsburgh.) He has suggested that a better term might be "global weirding," as in, things are not necessarily going to get as warm as they are extreme. For example, much of northern N.E. just had a record snowfall total for December. Now, the forecast calls for 10+ degree unseasonable warmth for most of January. Two back to back records? Snow in Flordia? That's kind of weird....

"are getting in the constant habit of posting localized daily weather observations, which really mean very little,"

Don't all measurements of global warming, start out as local measurements?

Reply: yes they do. But you need to collect an awful lot of them over a long period of time.

The last time I was down in Florida (DisneyWorld), which was Nov of 2006, there were reports of flurries just north of Orlando.

REPLY: Gee, snow in Florida. Yep the globe is really burning up, isn't it? Really have to tax ourselves back to the stone age because it's burning up all over. But then again, Florida isn't the world, is it? I forgot. It's not part of the globe!...ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE THE ENVIRO-ZEALOTS!!!!

Hi GSN,

It isn't "global weirding." It is what has always been known as a "January thaw" in the East. A few days of warmth and then back to thew usual cold.
http://www.accuweather.com/forecast-15day.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=1&zipChg=1&zipcode=02101&metric=0

Out west, the promised warm up isn't happening either, though we did manage to eek above the freezing mark for the first time in weeks this afternoon. We might even get to normal for a day or two before the next blast of cold and snow this weekend.

A better term than "global warming" is "climate hypochondria."

Brett - sorry I don't consider NOAA data showing cold weather in the western half of the country over the last two winters as being "localized daily weather observations." That is more like a trend, and it should not be ignored.

Reply: I don't either, but you know what type of posts I am talking about Patrick, and there have been a lot of them posted recently.

So why did you post the conditions if Florida? Was it to ease the fears generated from perpetuators of an impending global meltdown? They need to CHILL OUT.

Reply: 1. it was interesting on an otherwise slow day. 2. There has been a tremendous increase is posts dealing with weather observations on a particular day or week so I figured it was my turn for fun. 3. I did not imply in any way that the Florida flurries meant that there was no global warming or that there was global cooling. Just an extreme weather event.

We get it, the earth has gotten warmer. The situation is being monitored by everyone, so relax. No need to panic is there? Try to contain yourselves for Gods sake. We have been paying up here in the northern states as a direct result of the COLD.

Some of you remind me of that panic stricken stewardess from the movie airplane. You know, the stewardess that got slapped in the face by the other passengers in order to get her to calm down. This is your virtual (*WHAP*) slap in the face. Pull it together, would ya? Everythings gonna be ok.

Russian scientist urges 'stock up on fur coats' to face upcoming GLOBAL COOLING...

Whose to say the Russians are not right?????

Global Warming is a fraud!

Iceman,

Those are good questions you pose. The idea of CO2 causing AGW is ultimately based on principles of the physics of CO2. It is transparent to some of the infrared frequencies that come from the sun, so those frequencies pass through to warm the earth's surface. A warmed earth's surface emits infrared radiation at longer wavelengths than those which came from the sun. However, CO2 tends to absorbs those longer wavelengths, so that some (not all) of the IR radiation readmitted by the earth's surface is unable to escape back out into space.
One of the earliest researchers into the field was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius. (link below is to wikipedia article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

As for the CO2 lag problem, that is an issue that is current;y being debated. As I understand it, the hypothesis is that it is changes in the Milankovitch cycles that start and end ice ages, but they would not be able to do so without CO2 feedback. In otherwords, changes in the earth's orbit causes the earth to start to get warmer. Once a threshold warmth has been reached, atmospheric levels of CO2 begin to rise and act as a positive feedback, inducing further warming. Some people aren't satisfied with that hypothesis, so there is still some debate going on.
Iceman, the point is, is that increasing CO2 in an atmpsohere (of any planet), all else being equal tends to have a warming effect.
The estimated CO2 concentration right before the industrail revolation is usually given at about 280 ppm, where as current concentrations are at about 380 ppm, by volume.
However, at different times in the earth's past, CO2 levels have been much higher that at present. Of course, many of those times, it was also much warmer than at present. I say "many" and not "all" because I don't jave a detailed paleoclimatic rcord of past temperatures in front of me. I do know that it was much warmer during most of the Mesozoic era thna today.

iceman,

There are a few links in this post from a few threads back concerning the lag time of CO2 behind temperature increases.

These links probably don't answer your question, but it does show that Al Gore has it wrong in his PowerPoint presentation (a fact he chooses to ignore). I would check out those articles and review their reference lists and see what earlier papers are referenced.

Iceman,

Those were the Vostok Ice cores. It was one of the deepest cores ever, over 3000 meters and was supposed to span 4 climate cycles. I have special interest in this because I was a soil core driller for a while before I started my present job, so I still keep up with it. Would have been cool to be in on it. The Earth goes through a predictable pattern of long ice ages which are separated by comparatively warm intervals called interglaciations. The ice ages last about 100,000 years and the warm intervals last about 12,000 years. If you'll notice when you look at them, in all the cases,as we transition from glacial to interglacial, the CO2 increases up to +/- 300 ppm. We are now at, what, 380ppm This pattern has nothing to do with human activity, as it goes back before modern man was here. CO2 always rises with the temperature. I encourage you to look at the Vostok graphs. You will see that everything happens in a natural cycle. Nothing new is happening. Mother Nature, God, Thor, Buddha, whatever, has his/her own patterns we barely understand.

Here's a quick article and then you can search from there for more.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Global Weirding, I like that one. I suppose it's still man's doing though right?

I still get a kick out of a snow shower when the sun is out. Makes me think of being in a snow globe. Happened a bunch yesterday.

We just got our energy bill for our business. Last year the avg temp in our town in WI was 31 for Dec. This year 18. Hmmm. The snowfall this year which I believe is 20+ inches above normal was the 5th snowiest year since WI began keeping records. Last Feb was the coldest month in over 60 years for our town. So since we are talking about taking temps, exactly where does all this temp data come from? How many sites and have those locations changed since the first year of collecting data?

Gore says the planet it sick. o.k. Would somebody tell me when exactly the planet was well? So if we are too warm now, when was the best year for all of us?

Any of this sound familiar?

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. .... record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Time Magazine, june 24, 1974

http://lakeminnetonkaliberty.blogspot.com/2007/12/debunking-myth-part-19-another-ice-age.html

Hi Brett,

I've been posting temperatures differences in and out of Metro areas to highlight the failure of NOAA, GISS and USHCN to properly consider UHI effects. What could be more central to the discussion than the validity of the core global warming data?

Patrick: First, I never singled out anyone in particular, inlcuding you. Second, your posts about the temp. differences in and out of metro areas is interesting, and was not part of what I was talking about.

However, CO2 tends to absorbs those longer wavelengths, so that some (not all) of the IR radiation readmitted by the earth's surface is unable to escape back out into space.

cmbclean,

You should sign up for a thermodynamics class this semester. Your statement is complete nonsense. The earth, as with any other system, has a balance of energy where incoming energy equals outgoing energy.

As far as the need for CO2 feedback in ice ages cycles, that is also complete nonsense. Ice ages start when CO2 is at a maximum, and they end when it is at a minimum. Ice age cycles happen in spite of CO2 feedback, not because of it. I realize that you are just repeating standard AGW gibberish, but you need to think for yourself.

My posts make me sound illiterate!!

"Readmitted" should be "re-emitted", although I'm not even sure if that is a wird.

iceman:

"The idea was as CO2 levels rose, temps went up. Though some still say this now, it seems accepted by most on both sides that the CO2 lags the warming by about a 1000 years. The CO2 is, in fact, a product of the warming. My question is, was this fact known by scientists studying ice cores early on, or did they figure it out later?"

When they first drilled the Vostok ice cores, they noted the relationship between CO2 and temperature, but the resolution of the original cores was not fine enough to discern which came first. In the 1980s, Hansen and others argued that the warming oceans and thawing permafrost should release CO2, and therefore temperature increases would precede outgassing and thawing of CO2. In the 1990s, Ice cores were studied with better, more accurate methods and Hansen's predictions were confirmed.

"It seems to me a big part of the original evdence backing GW was the ice core samples showing rising CO2, leads to rising temps. Now that's not the case. It seems like a big piece of evidence is lost here and it's just been brushed aside as no big deal. Maybe I'm wrong."

I'm afraid you are. By the time the ice cores are drilled, it's well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Thanks to the pioneering work of Arhenius and later contributions by Calendar and others.) If you are interested in the history of climatology, you should read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming available (for free and online) at the American Institute of Physics website:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Snow in Florida????? Must be global warming.

Take a wild uneducated guess to what the people of Florida think of AGW.lol

I wonder what would happen when let's say half the world got 5 inches of snow today? Would they still say the earth is warming? probably since it would not go along with their program.

Any of this sound familiar? ... Time Magazine, june 24, 1974
...
You should sign up for a thermodynamics class this semester. Your statement is complete nonsense. The earth, as with any other system, has a balance of energy where incoming energy equals outgoing energy.

These two canards again?

The "coming ice age" of the 70's was a creation of the media of the time, and was not advocated or proposed by climatologists. It has no relevance to the current debate.

The earth does have a balance of energy. And, in the absence of the "greenhouse effect", the earth's surface temperature would be about 33 degrees K cooler than we measure. The 33 d contribution is the result of the greenhouse effect. The literature is chock-full of straightforward explanations (like this one). How many times must this flagrantly incorrect assertion be refuted?

Brett, can we please have a "FAQ" someplace on the site, so that we can fight these battles once instead of every other day?

I put up the web-site for the comment about the Russian scientists.....you should publish it..

//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

Thanks for the info guys.

Boris,

I figured that early on CO2 was known to be a greenhouse gas. My thought was that a piece of evidence, maybe a big piece, supporting the AGW theory were the ice core samples showing CO2 levels rising followed by rising temperatures. I believe, as has been stated, Al Gore showed this correlation. Most people here know a lot mo