Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: MIS 11 CO2 Concentration

Expand Messages
  • jtr_iv
    Hi Ken, ... Isn t that a bit presumptuous of an opening line? ... No sir, you are once again incorrect. From the text of that paper: Preliminary measurements
    Message 1 of 105 , Apr 30, 2007
      Hi Ken,

      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "liberty1776_2000"
      <liberty1776_2000@...> wrote:
      > To clear a few things up.

      Isn't that a bit presumptuous of an opening line?

      > Fig. 3 EPICA. Termination V goes from 2760m down to 2790m based on
      > dust, grain size, and delta-D.

      No sir, you are once again incorrect. From the text of that paper:

      "Preliminary measurements of air content made between 2762.1 and
      2783.0m depth (MIS 11),"

      This text (from page 626) clearly shows that the long period of high
      CO2 is the long MIS 11 interglacial.

      > Using the definition of Termination V the range of CO2 is about 200
      > ppmv (2790m) to 280 ppmv (2760m).

      Ken you still seem to be confused about the difference between Marine
      Isotope Stages (MIS) and Terminations. An MIS is a stage of either
      glacial or interglacial and a Termination is the transition from
      glacial to interglacial. Termination V is in figure 3, however it is
      the period of transition or termination of the glacial MIS 12 and
      the beginning of state, the interglacial MIS 11.

      This paper goes on to compare Termination I that began our Holocene
      with Termination V which began MIS 11.

      > If you wanted to be bit more picky about 204 ppmv to 278 ppmv.
      > MIS11 data is taken from depths above 2760m and is not displayed.

      As indicated by the text I quoted above you are mistaken.


      "Preliminary measurements of air content made between 2762.1 and
      2783.0m depth (MIS 11),"

      You don't seem to realize you are using the complete MIS11-
      Termination V - MIS 12 range when you throw out these figures.

      > The only point that might be in question is the one at 2760m (~280
      > ppmv).

      Respectfully sir I don't understand why you seem to assume I'm wrong
      without bothering to check. If you had you would have discovered what
      is being shown in figure 3 by now. How many posts will I have to
      explain this to you before you grudgingly consider that I may be
      correct and reconsider your position?

      > How do you get a CO2 profile for MIS11 from fig. 3 and a range of
      > 280 to 300 ppmv for MIS11?

      From that low resolution graphic it appears that CO2 stays close to
      the 270 to 280 ppmv range during MIS 11.

      > Why does it matter whether depth goes left to right or right to
      > left?

      Well because you didn't seem to understand what was in that graphic.
      MIS 11 is younger than MIS 12, therefore as we move from left to
      right, deeper into the core we go further back in time. From MIS 11
      on the left side, to the transition period between stages known as
      Termination V centered about 2785 m to the glacial MIS 12 on the

      > MIS11 is defined based on measurements of the ratio of Oxygen18 to
      > Oxygen16 in marine cores. All of MIS11 is by definition an
      > interglacial. There is no separate glacial and interglacial part.

      Whatever gave you the impression that MIS 11 represented both a
      glacial and an interglacial? I believe our discussion is hampered by
      your confusion over the terms MIS and Termination.

      > Fig. 1 Raynoud et. al. gives a CO2 range of about 230ppmv to 290
      > ppmv for MIS11.

      I'm not familiar with this paper, would you please post it in the
      files section? I'd like to see this, because you may well be again
      confusing MIS 11 CO2 levels with Termination V CO2 levels.

      > The median by visual inspection is about 275 ppmv. That is half
      > the CO2 values are above and half below. I would like to do an
      > average to comapre with Siegenthaler, but am unable to download
      > data from NOAA paleoclimate's ftp server. Likewise I'm unable to
      > move files from the internet to our group file section. I will
      > look for an alternate source for Raynoud et. al. data.

      I've uploaded the EPICA ice core CO2 data to the files section. With
      this low resolution data most of MIS 11 is above

      Just remember that the Siegenthaler paper you quoted the other day
      said that CO2 was "in the range" of 260 ppmv for MIS 11 to MIS 16.

      > Meantime this graphic of CO2 variations during the Pleistocene
      > (650,000 yBP to present) may help put MIS11 in perspective. MIS11
      > is the interglacial at about 400,000 yBP.

      LOL... thanks.... but I have to ask... is that a put down or do you
      really not pay any attention to what I write?

      Or is this new to you?

      It just seems odd that as I've been talking about MIS 11 for days and
      you find it necessary to point out which interglacial is MIS 11.

      And be cautious when using data from Wikipedia. They are a wealth of
      information.... but anyone can contribute and I've found some of
      their graphics are a bit slanted. For example this person simply
      divided periods at a threshold of 230 ppmv for glacial to
      interglacial without noting the terminations.

      > If you try to count the
      > MIS stages it is helpful to know that MIS2, MIS3, and MIS4 are now
      > all considered to be one single glacial. No other interglacial
      > during the Pleistocene shows a level of CO2 equivalent to our
      > current value of about 380 ppmv.

      True, and we know why.

      But the point we've been dancing around is that for typical
      interglacial values our current Holocene is expected to last a very
      long time. By the way, they also reference Berger and Loutre.


    • liberty1776_2000
      ... So then what is the margin of error in W/m2 when computing peak Jun daily insolation at 65N?
      Message 105 of 105 , May 10, 2007
        > Ken, respectfully you have gotten in deep over your head in trying to
        > prove me wrong. Not only are those numbers absurdly lower than the
        > margin of error for such short time scales but you even went further
        > to compare only peak days!

        So then what is the margin of error in W/m2 when computing peak Jun
        daily insolation at 65N?

        > > http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/solar.html
        > > http://deved.meted.ucar.edu/paleo/paleo1/media/flash/inscalc.swf
        > > http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/~jgc/sunshine.html#Applet1
        > > ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/insolation/
        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, jtr_iv <no_reply@...> wrote:
        > Hi Ken#2,
        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "liberty1776_2000"
        > liberty1776_2000@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Your claims were essentially that we reached a minima in orbital
        > > forcing in about 1200 AD and orbital forcing is currently
        > > increasing enough to serve as part of the justification for
        > > being "shocked" that Hansen would suggest a naturaly cooling earth.
        > Hold on a second Ken, I never said that we were currently increasing.
        > We are headed towards a NH65 maximum in ~10,000 AP (or was it AD?)
        > per Berger and Loutre but from what I can tell currently there is
        > very little change in insolation. We likely have bottomed out, but
        > the changes are so small there is relatively no change in insolation
        > due to orbital forcings. Certainly not on short time scales, but of
        > course orbital forcings are not meant for short time scales.
        > >
        > > Your basis for the estimate of the orbital forcing is calculations
        > > done using Berger's algorithms.
        > Only for long time scales which is how we normally see Berger's
        > algorithms applied which is appropriate.
        > I didn't base the ~1200 AD date on Berger's algorithms, I based it on
        > the passing alignment of NH winter solstice past perihelion (Earth's
        > closest to the Sun) about that time (~1200 AD), due to the shortest
        > orbital cycle known as precession. Now NH65 June is heading toward an
        > insolation peak ~ 10,000 years from now when the NH solstice occurs
        > at aphelion (Earth's closest point to the Sun), although a minor peak
        > due to very low eccentricity and obliquity.
        > Now with obliquity decreasing (the axis of the pole straightening)
        > that may have made the single peak NH65 June day decrease by 0.04
        > W/m2 over the next century (well beyond the margin of error), but you
        > seem to be missing the bigger picture in working a bit too hard to
        > prove me wrong.
        > What you don't seem to understand is that you are taking calculations
        > meant for very long time scales, then overstepping it even further by
        > picking a single day. Orbital forcings are not meant to be that
        > precise with their somewhat chaotic behavior.
        > Try this one at the same GISS site:
        > http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/srmonlat.html
        > This applet shows average monthly runs by latitude. For NH65 June
        > insolation average this shows a value of 475 W/m2 from 1000 AD to
        > 2500 AD, no change. This was as far as I ran it.
        > > The same alogrithms are used in the
        > > GISS Fortran program. If the algorithms were good enough to serve
        > > as a basis for critquing Hansen and Pat why are they not good
        > > enough now.
        > >
        > I'm sorry, but the above seems to be based on your misunderstanding
        > my position and the misuse of long term orbital forcings on a short
        > time scale.
        > > The error in your estimation of the orbital forcing seems
        > > difficutlt to explain in terms accuracy, given that you used
        > > the same algorithms and the error is on the order of a millenium.
        > >
        > You need to study a bit more on orbital mechanics. You've taken the
        > position I'm wrong and made several errors here trying to show me
        > wrong. You have taken absurdly small time scales on the basis of
        > algorithms designed for long time scales even going so far as to
        > (incorrectly) only compare only the insolation on the single peak day
        > of NH65 June!
        > > Although you elected not to quantify you evidence for
        > > being "shocked", I would say that you would require an orbital
        > > forcing on the order of +1 W/m2 per century.
        > Surely you are kidding here???
        > You seem to be trying to put the burden on me. All I ask for is what
        > forcing should be driving us naturally to cooling and you can't seem
        > to come up with one. Neither can anyone else. You've gotten in a
        > little over your head in the orbital mechanics issue as shown by
        > trying to apply it to extremely short time scales.
        > And as you have missed the purpose of the Berger and Loutre paper
        > with the extremely low eccentricity we are currently experiencing we
        > aren't going to have anything like a 1 W/m2 change per century any
        > time soon. This past insolation minimum was small as will the next
        > insolation maximum.
        > The burden of proof is on those who perpetuate the environmentalist
        > myth that the Earth would be cooling if not for human influence and
        > thus far nothing has been provided to support this.
        > > The actual value based
        > > on Berger's algorithms is roughly -0.04 to -0.05. Consistent with
        > > Jim Hansen's remarks concerning a cooling earth.
        > >

        > I really don't think it's too much to ask for those who put for the
        > environmentalist myth to support it on some basis. Is that really so
        > unreasonable?
        > Cheers
        > Jim
        > > Ken2
        > >

        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.