Mathematical/statistical evidence for global warming?

[questionposter]

Just for a minor research paper, so wikipedia isn't good. But I'm looking for things like how the temperature has risen in the last 100 years vs how much the temperature and rises normally, or how the same things happen with CO2, or core samples and their meaning from legitimate scientists. It's kind of a shame how so much information people research isn't public-ally available, like just the research that even local universities or weather stations do. I don't know why, maybe the only way they can is to hire a web designer and that costs too much. Any legitimate links would be appreciated, thanks.

Edited September 20, 2011 by questionposter

[questionposter]

Ok how about this:

I can't seem to find a link explaining in detail how carbon dioxide levels normally rise in periods of 100 years. I see some graphs which measure ing 50 million years intervals and seem to follow a periodic cycle, but I know that since the 19th century that Earth's CO2 level has increased by about 30% which has been confirmed by multiple sources, so I just need legitimate links websites with .gov or .org or .edu that aren't wikipedia, explaining how CO2 levels normally rise in 100-200 years so I can have strong evidence point either for or against climate change caused by humans. My current evidence for either isn't concrete, but this would make at least one argument more concrete if I found the answer and it would allow me to have a good endpoint.

 

I mean I know it's similar to a sine wave, but by what percentage does carbon dioxide normally increase when it has increased in the past? Surely many scientists have looked into this and taken core samples, but I can't seem to find that exact data online.

Edited September 22, 2011 by questionposter

[the asinine cretin]

You might start by looking at the most recent IPCC report.

[jeskill]

Three basic lines of evidence:

 

Look at figures that show the rate of change of air temperature, sea level, ice extent (from, say, 1800 to now).

Look at figures that show the rate of change of GHG emissions from 1800 til now.

Look at figures that model temperature change solely on natural forcings, and compare them to figures that model temperature change based on natural and anthropogenic forcings together. Which model fits past data better?

 

I'm pretty sure you can find all these figures in the IPCC report.

[matty]

Look here...

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

 

It's a pretty famed study of the last 1000yrs and does Not support anthropogenic warming.

 

And then maybe Google "IPCC scandle" before you go digging around looking to them, your search will be rife with materials for a couple of healthy night's reading...

Edited October 11, 2011 by matty

[JohnB]

questionposter, the best records we have of the changes over the longer timescales is from the ice cores. Do a google scholar search for "Ice Cores" or "Vostok" or "Greenland cores" or similar and that will put you on the right track.

 

A very good person is Dr. Richard B. Alley who does a lot of work in this field and who archives his raw data very well. Raw data for the long term records is also available from NOAA at their website.

[penstemo]

The IPCC reports are flawed. The forcing attributed to carbon dioxide is overestimated. One important thing here is that

research indicates that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide follow warming, not the other way around. Therefore,

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are the effect of warming, not the cause.

[iNow]

The IPCC reports are flawed. The forcing attributed to carbon dioxide is overestimated. One important thing here is that

research indicates that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide follow warming, not the other way around. Therefore,

increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are the effect of warming, not the cause.

It can be both, you know. They're not mutually exclusive. Warming can lead to increases in CO2 levels, but increased CO2 levels can also lead to warming. Just because you struggle to understand this simple fact doesn't mean it's not true. You may as well be arguing that because forest fires have happened naturally in the past that humans cannot start them.

 

As for your assertion that the IPCC reports are flawed, it's almost certainly true. I'm sure that somewhere in that huge document there is a comma where a semicolon should be, a misspelled investigator name, or even a lack of error bars on temperature readings from one of the thousands of sites, perhaps. Maybe they spelled "color" with a U and it shows "colour"... ZOMG!!!!1!1!!!2!one!!

 

Where your own comments are flawed, however, is in your failure to cite specifically where the IPCC report is flawed, and also in your failure to clarify the magnitude of that error, as well as it's impact on the overall conclusion(s) of the report. Is the IPCC report 1% flawed, 20% flawed, 31.45% flawed, entirely flawed (it may as well be written in fat crayon by a 1 year old with mental handicaps)?

 

The challenge you'll have, of course, is that your arguments against the IPCC report(s) are not scientific, but ideological and ignorant. Frankly, given the nature of your comments above, you may as well be arguing that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. That statement is roughly equivalent to the one you've just made.

[JohnB]

Frankly, given the nature of your comments above, you may as well be arguing that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.

 

Ooh, that's good. May I use it?

[iNow]

you may as well be arguing that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns.^TM

There. Fixed.

[DrRocket]

Just for a minor research paper, so wikipedia isn't good. But I'm looking for things like how the temperature has risen in the last 100 years vs how much the temperature and rises normally, or how the same things happen with CO2, or core samples and their meaning from legitimate scientists. It's kind of a shame how so much information people research isn't public-ally available, like just the research that even local universities or weather stations do. I don't know why, maybe the only way they can is to hire a web designer and that costs too much. Any legitimate links would be appreciated, thanks.

 

Real scientists. Full data set methodology and analytical codes available.

 

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

[Essay]

Ok how about this:

I can't seem to find a link explaining in detail how carbon dioxide levels normally rise in periods of 100 years. I see some graphs which measure ing 50 million years intervals and seem to follow a periodic cycle, but I know that since the 19th century that Earth's CO2 level has increased by about 30% which has been confirmed by multiple sources, so I just need legitimate links websites with .gov or .org or .edu that aren't wikipedia, explaining how CO2 levels normally rise in 100-200 years so I can have strong evidence point either for or against climate change caused by humans. My current evidence for either isn't concrete, but this would make at least one argument more concrete if I found the answer and it would allow me to have a good endpoint.

 

I mean I know it's similar to a sine wave, but by what percentage does carbon dioxide normally increase when it has increased in the past? Surely many scientists have looked into this and taken core samples, but I can't seem to find that exact data online.

I think you'll find that CO2 varies by a few ppm/decade over the past few millennia, as you suggest "similar to a sine wave;" not changing much on the multidecadal scale, except slowly over centuries.

 

Here is a .edu link on climate for that period. The site is hosted (for his classes) by one of the top-ten "carbon cycle experts" globally, and you can ask questions or get clarifications if needed.

http://ats150.atmos....astClimates.pdf

 

~

[JohnB]

I think you'll find that CO2 varies by a few ppm/decade over the past few millennia, as you suggest "similar to a sine wave;" not changing much on the multidecadal scale, except slowly over centuries.

I think you'll find that CO2 varies by a few ppm/decade over the past few millennia, as you suggest "similar to a sine wave;" not changing much on the multidecadal scale, except slowly over centuries.

 

Depends on what you mean by "slowly" I think. The long term ice core records show it as pretty abrupt. (The blue line)

 

 

Having said "abrupt" however, it must be added that the change is from 190 - 290 ppm over a century or so which is still only 10ppm per decade at most. Interesting that the change can be described both as "abrupt" and "slow".

 

Also interesting is how dangerously low the lows were over the last 400k years, barely above the level where photosynthesis shuts down.

[Essay]

I think you'll find that CO2 varies by a few ppm/decade over the past few millennia, as you suggest "similar to a sine wave;" not changing much on the multidecadal scale, except slowly over centuries.

 

Depends on what you mean by "slowly" I think. The long term ice core records show it as pretty abrupt. (The blue line)

 

 

Having said "abrupt" however, it must be added that the change is from 190 - 290 ppm over a century or so which is still only 10ppm per decade at most. Interesting that the change can be described both as "abrupt" and "slow".

 

Also interesting is how dangerously low the lows were over the last 400k years, barely above the level where photosynthesis shuts down.

Photosynthesis? *red-herring alert ...interesting, but....*

I guess "barely above the level" is one of those relative terms like abrupt or slowly. You got any citation about how "barely above the level" that is, or at what level "photosynthesis shuts down?"

===

 

But back on topic, the "abrupt" changes you mention were long ago and far beyond the "few millennia" that I mentioned. Though you are right; even those abrupt changes were far slower than today's very abrupt and drastic change in CO2 levels. Scientific American had a recent article on how today's CO2 excursion is occurring at about 10 times the speed of the PETM, one of the most famous "abrupt and drastic" changes in geologic history.

http://www.scientifi...-global-warming

"Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of Earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison with what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future."

 

Figure 2. Rate of temperature change today (red) and in the PETM (blue). Temperature rose steadily in the PETM due to the slow release of greenhouse gas (around 2 billion tons per year). Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate.

"Many of the other climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well."

http://www.wundergro...limate/PETM.asp

 

But our future looks to be as "drastic" as the PETM, even if the PETM was "slow" compared to today's rate of change.

 

~

[JohnB]

I guess "barely above the level" is one of those relative terms like abrupt or slowly. You got any citation about how "barely above the level" that is, or at what level "photosynthesis shuts down?"

 

It wasn't meant as a red herring, it's just the way my mind works. Things clump together and I go "Isn't that interesting". But to answer your question, no. Many times over the years I've read that photosynthesis pretty much shuts down at around the 150 ppm mark, it's always been taken as a given. Since you asked I've a look and there are very few papers that mention actual figures. I did find one for an exceptional moss that stores chemicals and can photosynthesise at 50 ppm, but that's about it.

 

In general, photosynthesis shuts down when any one of three things drops below a threshold level, those being light, water and CO2. At that point photosynthesis stops and photorespiration takes over, basically what a plant does every night. Anyway I'll keep looking and let you know if I find anything. Or hopefully one of our biology experts will chime in with a figure.

 

However my comment was made in the context of the 150ppm being correct. If it is, then dropping down to 180ppm when for most of the last 600 million years it's been in the thousands, then that to me constitutes "barely above" in this case.

 

Now are we going to talk about CO2 or temps? I think I would quite agree that CO2 is rising faster than before. However that graph is showing (and the one further down the page at wunderground also shows) 4 degrees per century temp rise. Last time I looked we had had about .8 degrees in 150 years. (Or has there been an extra 3.2 degrees that I've missed?) I do find it irritating that some sites attempt to pass off "projections" as "observed fact". But even that is relatively unremarkable. Ice core records show DO events that changed the temps by 12-15 degrees in under 70 years. Even allowing for polar amplification this is still a hell of a lot faster than todays piddly .8 degrees/150 years. As to their list of "Impacts", I'm willing to call BS on pretty much every one of them.

 

If the ecosystem was as fragile and sensitive to change as is made out, there shouldn't be any ecosystem left after the very large number of very large temperature changes over the last 400,000 years. Every previous interglacial was warmer than this one. Coral has survived for hundreds of millions of years, withstanding drastic change and temps both above and well below those of today, but somehow they're all going to die if the temp rises a degree or so.

 

 

We're talking about the little wiggly bit on the very right hand edge of the graph.

 

But let's look a bit closer. 50,000 years.

 

 

Modern times are very right hand end. Can you tell me what is exceptional about it? I can see at least 15 events that dwarf modern warming both in rate and size in the last 50,000 years. The SciAm article makes much of "that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius", but it's not that expectional, is it?

 

Yes, the rise in CO2 has been exceptional, but the concurrent rise in temps has been neither exceptional nor unprecedented.