Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

[/QUOTE]

Actually i can but unlike my friends who chose to humor you, I gave up trying to educate people like you a few years back. It wasn't worth my time to reiterate the same thing over and over again. In a few months or so there will be another "climate change" denier that will pop in here to regurgitate false information obtains from blogs and hyperbole-filled denier sites. Then the whole thing starts all over again.

 

Dude YOU are in denial.You can't address my question because you are wrong.

 

Mojo, you keep bringing this CO2 finding from ice core analysis, but you do realize that while the finding are true the assumption may be not?

Just b/c the CO2 in ice cores is climbing it does not mean that GHG in atmosphere is climbing as well. There could be other explanations to why CO2 levels in ice cores are increasing, such as:
1) atmospheric methane oxygenation
2) increased CO2 solubility and
3) CO2 freezing.

While methane half life in atmosphere is short, the long time CO2 climbing will be consistent with methane belch and permafrost methane release.

Second, look at CO2 solubility in water:


lowering temperatures will produce higher CO2 content in ice cores while the atmospheric CO2 stays constant.

Also CO2 freezes at temperatures which has been observed. The CO2 freeze point at atmospheric pressure is -78C, and the lowest temp recorded are -82.8C in Antarctica and -66.1C in Greenland. Certainly not a big stretch to assume it has been dropping another 12C in Greenland during Ice Age.

There could be other factors at play, for example air trapped in snow will compress, so CO2 could become solid at higher temps.

Also the "Ice Age takes a few years (3-20 years )to manifest itself" is questionable, if it were true we should have seen one after Mt Pinatubo blew up.

 

From what Ive read actual atmospheric peak levels of CO2 may be much higher than measured in the ice cores.The peaks may be too short a period for the resolution of ice cores.Other than that I have no reason to doubt their accuracy.
Volcanoes arent the cause of ice ages.Volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by solar activity and the position of the planets and moon..Piers Corbyn accurately predicts their occurrence, but not location.
Milankovitch cycle is due any time now.It is not the result of volcanoes.But it may cause more volcanoes.

 

Anyway you are trying to divert from the elephant in the room.You dont have to respond if you dont have the answer.
How can CO2 cause forcing of interglacial warming,but has no forcing when cooling to Ice Age?

 

Actually I am not sure this is the case or it has been stated to be a case.

You have the natural occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger and Bond mini-cycles (LIA and MWP are the latest examples), dictated by impact of Arctic ice melting on Thermohaline. Due to negative feedback, the warming and consequent melting at high altitude causes the Gulfstream weakening with following ice caps regrowth and overall cooling.

GHG gets pumped up in atmosphere during warming up cycle, mostly from permafrost methane release but also from ocean warming. When the cooling starts CO2 is still in atmosphere but it will take time to remove through carbon sinks, s.a. geologic sequestration, plant absorption, freezing at polar caps, dissolving in oceans, methane oxygenation, etc.

When sufficient time passed growth of ice caps strengthens Thermohaline, and the up cycle starts again.

From that point of view the CO2-temperature are related but not direct 1:1. CO2 just a proxy, and not a simple one either.

Looking at ice cores and measuring CO2 we would not know what the total amount of GHG was at given point. We will see the CO2, but how much of that CO2 was captured as CH4? CH4 is much more potent GHG and it will oxygenate whilst captured in ice. YOu may be looking at 2 samples, sample 1 has X CO2 and sample 2 has 1.05 CO2 and assume that sample 2 had more GHG. However if sample 1 had 10x times of CH4 then sample 2, total GHG picture is quite different.