New data shows CO2 rising BEFORE increases in global temperature

[Surfer]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/greenhouse-gas-is-no-weakling.html

<Start extract>

The issue with Antarctic ice cores was that they recorded a rise in
temperature ahead of the rise in carbon dioxide. How could the greenhouse
gas be causing the warming, skeptics asked, if it wasn't in the atmosphere
when the warming started?

But climate scientists know that no one region is representative of global
climate trends. So Jeremy Shakun of Harvard University and his colleagues
created a global temperature record. They combined 80 records of temperature
over the past 22,000 years retrieved from around the world, ranging in
latitude from Antarctica to Greenland. The seven types of records included
ice cores whose oxygen isotopes record varying temperature. There were also
pollen from lake muds and microfossils from ocean sediments, whose species
and abundance reflect temperature.

Once a globally representative record came together, the data clearly showed
carbon dioxide rising ahead of rising temperature , as it should if the
greenhouse gas were helping drive the world out of the ice age. The warming
of Antarctica ahead of carbon dioxide's rise was a red herring, Shakun and
his colleagues conclude online today in Nature.

To see why, the researchers drew on a climate model as well as a variety of
other climate records. They saw changes in the far north that triggered
southward-marching changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation that
eventually reached Antarctica. The immediate effect? There was an early
warming as South Atlantic currents that normally carry heat away to the
north stalled. But that warming came before the same changes triggered the
release of much carbon dioxide from the deep ocean. As a result, Antarctic
warming got a jump on the rest of the world, but carbon dioxide went on to
warm the globe as a whole.

The new global temperature record "is quite an achievement," says Eric
Wolff, a paleoclimatologist at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge,
the United Kingdom. The early Antarctic warming "has been a thorn in the
side of climate scientists," he says, but "one doesn't have to deal with
that issue anymore."

<End extract>

Shakun et al. paper here:

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during
the last deglaciation
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

[Truth and honesty]

You know only a couple of years we were being told that global warming was
the cause of the drought in Melbourne. Those scientist were extremely sure
of themselves. How many have stood up now and said they were wrong?

[troppo]

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in news:4f81067c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/greenhouse-gas-is-no-weak

See Eschenbach:

http://tinyurl.com/7bde4bu

"No way that the proxies could support the title of the paper" and -
surprise surprise - they fudged it ...

[Surfer]

"Truth and honesty" <Tr...@honest.com> wrote in message
news:1t5trnle1kdf2$.p80v262exnu9$.dlg@40tude.net...

That doesn't sound right, but global warming is probably increasing the
severity of floods and droughts.

That is because warmer air can hold more moisture.

It then follows that during wet seasons, air saturated with moisture can
then produce heavier precipitation.

On the other hand, during droughts, warmer dry air can cause the moisture in
soil to evaporate faster.

Cf.
http://atmo.tamu.edu/osc/library/osc_pubs/2011_drought.pdf
".....The 2011 drought in Texas has been unprecedented in its intensity...."

".....Because of the return of La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific, a
second year of drought in Texas is likely, which will result in continued
drawdown of water supplies. Whether the drought will end after two years or
last three years or beyond is impossible to predict with any certainty, but
what is known is that Texas is in a period of enhanced drought
susceptibility due to global ocean temperature patterns and has been since
at least the year 2000.

The good news is that these global patterns tend to reverse themselves over
time, probably leading to an extended period of wetter weather for Texas,
though this may not happen for another three to fifteen years. Looking into
the distant future, the safest bet is that global temperatures will continue
to increase, causing Texas droughts to be warmer and more strongly affected
by evaporation...."

[Surfer]

"troppo" <t--...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA02FAB7CD...@88.198.244.100...

> "Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in news:4f81067c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>>

>> Shakun et al. paper here:
>>
>> Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations
>> during the last deglaciation
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
>>
>
> See Eschenbach:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7bde4bu
>

Thank you.

>
> "No way that the proxies could support the title of the paper"
>

Maybe.

>
> and - surprise surprise - they fudged it ...
>

That is not clear.

Eschenbach writes:
"Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short...."

But the following graph in the Shakun et al. paper doesn't have that problem
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/carousel/nature10915-f2.2.jpg

The caption says:
"The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early
Holocene (11.5-6.5?kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite
temperature record42 (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (refs 12, 13;
yellow dots)."

[Truth and honesty]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 16:22:33 +0930, Surfer wrote:

> That doesn't sound right, but global warming is probably increasing the
> severity of floods and droughts.

Clearly it is not right, but that is what they said

[Surfer]

"Truth and honesty" <Tr...@honest.com> wrote in message

news:12vvppar9k8aj.1...@40tude.net...

Well, "they" misinterpreted what climate scientists and the IPCC have been
saying.

That is something that journalists, politicians and officials occasionally
do.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Who told you that? List their names and their specialties.

Those scientist were extremely sure
> of themselves. How many have stood up now and said they were wrong?

**Dunno. How about a cite so we can check your claim?


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ron House]

On 08/04/12 16:51, troppo wrote:
> "Surfer"<n...@spam.net> wrote in news:4f81067c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/greenhouse-gas-is-no-weak
>> ling.html
>>

> See Eschenbach:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7bde4bu
>
> "No way that the proxies could support the title of the paper" and -
> surprise surprise - they fudged it ...

Not only that. Even they admit that the order of events was (assuming
their misunderstanding of their own data were correct):

A: Antarctica warms
B: CO2 goes up
C: The rest of the world warms.

So how did Antarctica do it? Go up that is, before the CO2. Is
Antarctica the world's Oracle of Delphi?

But on to the author's "logic":

"B before C "proves" B caused C."

What if A caused them both? What if something else caused all of them?

In short, this drivel is the death of the once-respected Nature
used-to-be "journal".


--
Ron House
Building Peace: http://peacelegacy.org
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net