On Oct 4, 5:10 am, "tadams...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
> On Oct 3, 9:30 am, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 4:46 am, "tadams...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 3:45 am, person  wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 2, 9:32 pm, "tadams...@yahoo.com"  wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 11:30 pm, "Bonzo"  wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Tom"  wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:1191207402.497814.267920@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 30, 3:42 am, chemist  wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 3:03 pm, Tom  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial
> > > > > > Atmospheric CO2
> > > > > > > > > > Rise and Tropical Warming
> > > > > > > > > > Lowell Stott 1*, Axel Timmermann 2, Robert Thunell 3
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern
> > > > > > California, Los
> > > > > > > > > > Angeles, CA, USA.
> > > > > > > > > > 2 IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii, 2525 Correa Road, HI
> > > > > > 96822, USA.
> > > > > > > > > > 3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South
> > > > > > Carolina,
> > > > > > > > > > Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
>
> > > > > > > > > > * To whom correspondence should be addressed.
> > > > > > > > > > Lowell Stott , E-mail: st...@usc.edu
>
> > > > > > > > > > Establishing what caused Earth's largest climatic changes
> > > > > > in the past
> > > > > > > > > > requires a precise knowledge of both the forcing and the
> > > > > > regional
> > > > > > > > > > responses. Here we establish the chronology of high and
> > > > > > low latitude
> > > > > > > > > > climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C
> > > > > > dating benthic
> > > > > > > > > > and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca
> > > > > > records from a
> > > > > > > > > > marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific.
> > > > > > Deep sea
> > > > > > > > > > temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P.
> > > > > > (thousand years
> > > > > > > > > > before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and
> > > > > > tropical
> > > > > > > > > > surface ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this
> > > > > > deglacial deep
> > > > > > > > > > water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can
> > > > > > its early onset
> > > > > > > > > > between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.
> > > > > > Increasing austral
> > > > > > > > > > spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks
> > > > > > appear to be
> > > > > > > > > > key factors responsible for this warming.
>
> > > > > > > > > The fact that CO2 did not initiate the initial warming at
> > > > > > the end of
> > > > > > > > > the last "ice age" (glacial maximum) is old news, known
> > > > > > since the ice
> > > > > > > > > cores were analyzed in the 90s.
>
> > > > > > > > > The cause of the first 1000 years or so of warming is a bit
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > mystery which these scientist propose to clear up.
>
> > > > > > > > > The problem for deniers is that the initial warming started
> > > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > > > greenhouse gases that in turn accelerate the warming in a
> > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > loop, so 80% of the warming since the last ice age makes no
> > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > without greenhouse gas theory. And the other 20% does not
> > > > > > contradict
> > > > > > > > > greenhouse gas theory, since nobody claims that greenhouse
> > > > > > gas are the
> > > > > > > > > only cause of climate warming since the last glacial
> > > > > > maximum. And the
> > > > > > > > > authors of the paper allude to that, saying that their
> > > > > > paper does not
> > > > > > > > > undermine greenhouse gas theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > Here's a cite to the paper, which "chemist" left out:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
>
> > > > > > > > What a trite explanation. How DO they know that  80% of the
> > > > > > > > warming since the last ice age makes no sense without
> > > > > > > > greenhouse gas theory.All the warming could have been caused
> > > > > > > > by natural effects.
>
> > > > > > > It was caused by natural effects.  Greenhouse gases were
> > > > > > released when
> > > > > > > the climate heats up.  What different now it that humans are
> > > > > > releasing
> > > > > > > greenhouse gases on a massive scale, so its not the climate
> > > > > > warming
> > > > > > > that is initiating the release of greenhouse gases, its the
> > > > > > gases that
> > > > > > > are initiating the warming.
>
> > > > > > > > After all the warming rate did not accelerate as the CO2
> > > > > > increased.
>
> > > > > > > Oh yes it did.  Without the assumption that greenhouse gases
> > > > > > caused
> > > > > > > 80% of the warming, we have no explanation for it.
>
> > > > > > You're subconsciously nearing the truth with the word
> > > > > > "assumption".
> > > > > > I would use the word "lie" and a blatant one at that.
>
> > > > > One of my favorite things is when a denier points out that warming
> > > > > preceded the GHG buildup at the end of the last "ice age" (glacial
> > > > > max), as Chemist did.
>
> > > > > You see, that observation is based on the ice core data, the GHG and
> > > > > temperature measurements from the ice cores.  But, if you accept those
> > > > > measurements then you have accepted overwhelming evidence that GHGs
> > > > > have played a big role in driving climate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > No you don't.  Because the GHGs did not rise until AFTER the temp
> > > > increase.  That is what the ice cores show.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > You did it again!  True, but the *total* core record since the last
> > > ice age cannot be explained without GHG theory!   80% of the warming
> > > is due to GHG.  The initial temp increase caused a release of GHG that
> > > in turn boosted the temp in a positive feedback loop.   The initial
> > > temp increase was not caused by GHG, but nobody says that GHG is the
> > > only thing that forces temp.
>
> > (cut)
>
> >    No, changes in earth's eccetricity due to Milankovich cycles, or
> > changes in solar input,  or natural oscillations due to Arctic melt
> > initiated the changes.  CO2, CH4 FOLLOWED this forcing from the sun,
> > or whatever.
> > Temperatures later fell, again caused by the sun, or some other
> > extraneous factor,  and CO2 and CH4 declined.
>
> >   If the CO2 were a FORCING factor,  increased temperatures do to
> > extraneous factors would have increased CO2 and CH4, which would have
> > increased temperatures further, leading to a further increase in CO2
> > and CH4,   resulting in an exponential runaway effect.    Your
> > argument is like me pushing a stalled car down a hill (initial
> > forcing),  the CO2 is like the hill, acting as a forcing factor,
> > increasing the speed of the car, which accelerates downhill,  and my
> > wife at the bottom of the hill gets in front of the speeding car, and
> > stops it with her low mass and weak strength,
> > as do the factors which push temperatures downward again.   Do you now
> > see why I don't find the CO2 forcing argument plausible?
>
> Temperature goes up with the *log* of CO2 concentration,  3 degrees C
> for each doubling of concentration.  So, as the concentration goes up
> it gets harder and harder for a given quanity of released CO2 to
> increase the temperature.  

(cut)

  Over the 20th century CO2 increased from 280 to 380 ppm.

ln 380/280 = 0.305.
ln 2           = 0.693

  If temperatures increased 0.7 K over the 20th century
(a slight overestimate)
they would increase 693/305* 0.7 = 1.59 K with a doubling,  quite a
bit less
than your 3 K estimate- A. McIntire