Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Earth's climate alternates between ice ages, and greenhouse periods during which there are no glaciers on the planet.
Ice age - Wikipedia

Now that weve cleared the confusion after the 100 responses to my point about coming out of an ice age, none of which actually address my points, can anyone present a rational argument as to how we can avoid the natural "green house" period that follows ice ages where the polar ice caps and glaciers will disappear. Or rational argument that the current increase in temperatures is anything other than coming out of the CURRENT ice age? This current temperature increase isnt as rapid as the end of the previous ice age.

 

What a beautiful demonstration of the dishonesty of the global warmers. From YOUR NOAA.gov source, right after you cut off the quote we can read-

"Earth is currently in an ice age called the Quaternary Ice Age which began around 2.5 million years ago and is still going on."
PSA_ice_ages.pdf (noaa.gov)

Arguments based upon nothing but lies and fearmongering for political purposes.

 

In AR5, the IPCC say: “The removal of human emitted CO2 from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years”.

You don’t seem to have understood my argument. The isotopic evidence shows a δ13C value of -8.3 which tells us only a small amount of anthropogenic CO2 is in the atmosphere. It also tells us that a considerable amount of anthropogenic CO2 has been absorbed into the deep-ocean because when our cumulative CO2-emissions are seperated between the surface-ocean and land biomass, there would be a much larger excess of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere today which would give a much higher δ13C value.

The fact that anthropogenic CO2-emissions continue to increase and is not a pulse concentration indeed tell us that they would not have reached total equilibrium, but equilibrium has almost nearly been reached as evidenced by the δ13C value which tell us that a large amount of anthropogenoc CO2 has already been absorbed by the deep-ocean. The bomb-spike data also tell us that equilibrium between the sinks occurs relastively fast (by 94%) within about 40 years. My point was, regardless of whether CO2 is a pulse concentration or not, is that when our cumulative CO2-emissions are separated between the relative sinks, the amount of anthropogenic CO2 residing in the atmosphere (the δ13C value) tells us unequivocally that a large portion has been absorbed into the deep-ocean.

Even so, regardless of our emissions are a pulse or not, isotopic equilibrium has nearly been reached. The pre-industrial equilibrium δ13C value was about -7 and it stood at about -8.3 when measured in 2015.

Not really. Dissolved CO2 is absorbed rapidly in the surface-ocean and converted to POC. This is called the biological pump and this pump gives a residence time of 10 years for CO2 in the surface-ocean before being transferred to the deep-ocean.

I cut that quote off before Jaworowski referenced another paper. The CO2 in the surface-ocean only has a short residence time before being transferred to the deep-ocean. The surface-ocean contains about 1,000 Gts of CO2 (as carbon) and about 100 Gts gets transferred to the deep-ocean each year.

But it does. The bomb-spike graph tells us that a pulse conscentration of CO2 reaches equibirum with sinks by around 40 years (the IPCC say this process takes hundreds of thousands of years) which means by 40 years, anthropogenic CO2 will have penetrated into the deep-ocean and almost reached isotopic equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere. The residence time of 14CO2 of 16 years has been measured to be longer than that for 12CO2 possibly due to differences in the kinetic absorption and dissolution rates of the two molecules (Segalstad 2009) and so the absoprtion of anthropogenic 12CO2 into the various sinks will be less than what the bomb-spike indicates. Yes, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not a pulse concentration, but equilibrium is still reached within decades or less.

When considering if the current CO2 increase is anthropogenic or not, we can also consider that the current CO2 level at around 420ppmv is not anything unusual despite what we may have heard from the AGW-lobby. The ice-cores show that the current CO2 level is unprecedented in thousands of years, but the ice-cores have been found to consistently underestimate the amount of atmospheric CO2 due to things such as ‘fractionation processes’ like gravitational compression which forces CO2 out of the ice and up to the surface over millennia. The direct measurements of CO2 we do have go back to around 1800. Thousands of direct chemical measurements were made between 1800 to 1950 by various scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, which were extracted from over 180 technical papers showing atmospheric CO2 peaking as high as 450ppmv in 1825 (see Georg Beck 2007 and 2009).

 

How many years did it take the ice caps to melt during the previous ice age and what was the depth of water over New York at the end of the ice age?

 

I dont know. Not too bad
Would all of New York City drown if all the polar ice caps were to completely melt? - Quora
Like I said, certainly more manageable than the mile and half thick Ice that used to cover the city.

Got anything relevant to my post you chose to respond to?

 

Where in AR5? Google doesn't give that quote.

No, I don't think you have made much of an argument.

As explained.

Why?

No it doesn't.

Why? How?

So that's not near equilibrium.

How?

How? Where is the evidence for such claims? If that were the case, CO2 would long ago have been reduced to the point where plants could not grow.

What does "short" mean? 1000y is short compared to the time you claim the IPCC claims.

How?

Still waiting for the reference to that quote.

Some small amount, yes. That's doesn't imply bulk movement.

Isotopic equilibrium does not imply equilibrium atmospheric concentration, as already explained.

Only isotopic equilibrium, not concentration equilibrium, as already explained.

It's unusual for the Pleistocene.

Why wouldn't compression affect other gases just as much?

That was just 10y after Tambora, the largest eruption in thousands of years, and we have little confidence many of those early samplings were scrupulously isolated from local human CO2 sources.

 

Only if you live on the 10th floor. After the ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age the sea level at New York was ~52m higher than today.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...enland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate

And when the ice cap at New York was ~2.5 km thick you could drive from Hobart to Port Moresby.

 

Only if it's higher than 60 metres above the current sea level.
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/about...climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise/

 

From IPCC AR5:

Yes I have. I explained this in my first reply. I can agree only that you have not understood anything of what I have said. I think that is because your mind has rejected it before you have had a chance to assimilate it and accommodate it in your thinking. In other words, you have put up a mental block to it -- a wall of denial that prevents it from reaching your intelligence and being processed by it.

The idea that there is a bottle-neck in the surface-ocean because CO2 takes time to diffuse to the deep-ocean is also not valid. If we assume that humans have released about 2,500 Gts of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1750 (according to the IPCC) and only 270 Gts or a δ13C of -8.3 (8% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere) can be measured as ‘anthropogenic’ based on isotopic analysis, that means that about 2,200 Gts must have been absorbed by sinks. If there was a bottle-neck restricting the flow of anthropogenic CO2 to the deep-ocean then anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere would have equilibrated (or separated) with the CO2 in the surface-ocean and land biomass and so the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere should be 625 Gts (since land biomass is about 8,500 Gts, surface-ocean is 3,500 Gts and atmosphere is 3,000 Gts). However, we only find about 270 Gts in the atmosphere. This means that a considerable amount of anthropogenic CO2 has diffused to the deep-ocean.

Yes it is, that per mil value is only a change of 30ppmv in anthropogenic CO2.

Dissolved CO2 can be converted into particulate organic carbon (POC) through various biological and chemical processes, largely by photoplankton which use dissolved CO2 as a carbon source for photosynthesis. During photosynthesis, they convert CO2 into organic carbon compounds, including carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins. These organic compounds can become part of the cellular structure of phytoplankton or be released into the water as particulate organic matter.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

What do you mean, how? It is shown in the IPCC's own AR4 carbon-cycle reports. The removal of CO2 in the surface-ocean is rapid. The surface-ocean contains about 1,000 Gts of CO2 (in the form of carbon) and about 100 Gts gets removed to the surface ocean each year which gives a residence time of 10 years. The reason why CO2 cannot accmulate in the atmosphere according to the IPCC is because of a chemical buffer called the Revelle Factor. The Revelle factor refers to the relationship between changes in dissolved CO2 concentration and changes in seawater pH as a result of the ocean's uptake of atmospheric CO2. It quantifies the sensitivity of seawater pH to changes in dissolved CO2 concentration. However, as scientists, such as Tom Segalstad have noted (see his 1998 paper) there is no evidence supporting the Revelle Factor.

Not following you.

Maybe it does. My point was that the ice-core measurements are not reliable, not just because of gravitational compression, but because of other reasons. The ice-core is not a closed-system and there are various processes that happen as CO2 is inside the ice that causes the ice to underestimate ancient CO2. Some of these processes include gravitational compression, which forces CO2 out of the ice over millennia and the high solubility of CO2 relative to N2O and O2 which is absorbed preferentially by liquid in the ice, underestimating CO2’s true values (Jaworowski 1997). Measurements of the surface-snow in Antarctica has shown that the surface-snow can underestimate atmospheric CO2 by up to 50% (Jaworowski et al 1992). Therefore, the ice-core is not a reliable representation of paleo-climate CO2 levels. There are chemical measurements suggesting CO2 was higher only a few hundred years ago, peaking at around 450ppmv, as shown in the graph below, adapted from Georg Beck 2007 and Stomata-proxy shows CO2 peaking at just below 450ppmv (Steinthorsdottir et al 2013). There’s different extraction methods in the ice-core to consider as well. The long-term wet-extraction method shows CO2 levels of over 900ppmv (see here).

They were, as explained by Gerog Beck. Unfortunately the paper in question now exists behind a pay-wall. The CO2 was also almost just as high in 1940.

 

The dishonesty is in your equivocation fallacy. The Pleistocene "ice age" is the last ~2.5My, during which large areas of the Northern Hemisphere have been glaciated ~90% of the time. Before the Pleistocene, that had not been the case for many millions of years. But that long ice age has been punctuated by dozens of alternating brief periods when the continental glaciers receded, and the glaciated intervals are called ice ages.

So contrary to your claim, it didn't end 130-140Kya, and you still can provide no evidence that it did.

 

That should read: "The reason why CO2 can accmulate in the atmosphere"

That should also read: "The surface-ocean contains about 1,000 Gts of CO2 (in the form of carbon) and about 100 Gts gets removed to the deep ocean each year which gives a residence time of 10 years".

 

Got anything relevant to the post of mine you chose to respond to?

 

Again from YOUR source you cant seem to comprehend.

"Earth is currently in an ice age called the Quaternary Ice Age which began around 2.5 million years ago and is still going on."
PSA_ice_ages.pdf (noaa.gov)

 

When will the spruce forests on Greenland grow again?
https://theconversation.com/when-gr...-of-ice-offers-warnings-for-the-future-209018

 

And presumably that's why Dettol Trump wanted to buy Greenland.
https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...E7321C19A4CE20410922E7321C19A4CE204&FORM=VIRE
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/antarctic-ice-sheets-found-in-greenland/102253878

 

I dont know. Greenland was Ice free and covered in spruce forest 400000 years ago, it will be again. All a part of the natural cycle. Got anything relevant to the topic of discussion.

 

An interesting paper on the Revelle Factor: https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

 

Yes, I misread the chart


with 5 drops in temperature and 5 increases in ice coverage, and interpreted it as the 5 ice ages. It is instead the last 5 Glacial periods within the CURRENT ice age that you allege ended 12K years ago. WHICH EVEN MORE demonstrates my point. We are both coming out of a current ice age AND coming out of the most recent glacial period. The temperature increase at the end of the previous glacial period increased more rapidly than the temperature is increasing now. increase 5 degrees more than we are currently. The current increase is a repeat of the natural cycle of BOTH ice ages AND glacial periods.

 

The graph below also indicates that the current warming is not anything unusual. The GISP2 graph (shown below) is loosely indicative of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. What you’re seeing in the graph below is warming rates based on 100-year time frames, to give us a good reference to the recent warming over the last 100 years, blamed on humans. You can see that the climate has warmed far more rapidly than anything us humans have allegedly been responsible for — over 15°C in 100-year time frames.

 

And if we continue to use fossil fuels instead of renewable energy sources, then we can replant Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula with spruce forests even more quickly, and rename New York to New Venice or New Atlantis.

 

Scientist Peter Stallinga 2020 calculates climate sensitivity to rising CO2 concentrations of 0.0014°C per 1ppmv, calling it barely measurable.

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020011611163731.pdf



A climate sensitivity smaller than 500 mK (millikelvin) means that the predicted increase in global mean surface temperature due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is less than 0.5°C.

The majority of instrumental equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates between 2012 and 2018 show a much smaller number than the IPCC:

 

Are use of fossil fuels up to this point hasnt brought that about. Cant imagine what would lead you to believe continued use would do anything differently.

 

Not quite yet, but the ice melting is accelerating.

 

Another claim without foundation.

 

No, it is not.