http://gizmodo.com/5255723/amateur-astronomer-captures-stunning-image-of-atlantis-hubble-in-the-face-of-the-sun

Yes it is a sign. Like I’ve previously mentioned around here, and even elsewhere. We’re headed for the highest level of activity since March 2008. But my forecast was for June. So this is just a precursor.

Keep in mind that the seasonal variation in dCO2/dt is not necessarily responding only to global temperature.

All these are handwaving models, they are just arguments to state that we do not know enough, do not have enough data or correct modeling to really know what we are doing.

But you still have not explained the source of the current CO2
and the question is do we have time to wait for the models/actuality to tell us what is happening? I agree that data is severely limited. but I thought that the CO2 record showed seasonal variation and so therefore should by now have shown the downturn in temperature.

Still not convinced by your arguments!!

When you say, “probably mostly of biologic origin together with surface currents turnover of hot and cold waters”, is this based on speculation? – on info which you have encountered? – (or something else?)

From reading a lot on links and following links in them. From observation of data ( AIRS, Beck,ice core).

Lucy’s site has a number of threads with lots of links

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=22

Take the AIRS animation: it shows clearly the biological input, a breathing out when things are burgeoning . Not when we burn most either winter or summer, but in April/May in the north. The bands are localized and stay in the hemispheres keeping their latitude. http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/CO2_Increase_Sep2002-Jul2008/

To summarize my understanding:

There are at least three mechanisms in the oceans , for two of which there is data:

1) the long term turn over of deep water rich in CO2, very slow and with a 700+ lag (Ice core)

2) a surface waters turn over whose CO2 behavior I have seen no data for, I would expect the time constants to be similar to PDO etc turns, but am waiting to see when and if the Mauna Loa goes into stasis. If it is not corrected out of it; there is great need of independent data, independent from the people who have based their reputation on CO2 corrections. Keeling is in all publications. That is why the Japanese data will be very valuable.

3) a seasonal and longer term response by the biological cycle, seen in AIRS and in the Mauna Loa and the trends plot.

So it is a hypothesis, that gives noise value to anthropogenic CO2, which will be falsified if temperatures keep cooling for 30 years and CO2 keeps rising.

As with everything I have discovered in climate data, possibly all mechanisms are at work, and the disentangling and percentages is where the crux is.

A programmer that once worked for me said when I was complaining he was falling behind: “the sooner I fall behind, the more time I have to catch up”… I kid you not.

Let’s keep in mind that this does not eliminate serious deficiencies in understanding of water/clouds/albedo (although some may now view the field of candidates as narrowed).

Richard M (09:23:12) “EXACTLY! The problem is GCMs and economic models are trying to model much more complex interactions than a bridge model (although that is still complex). The “confidence domain” of a GCM is probably very close to a null set.”

…And, perhaps more fundamentally, folks are not only willing to pay other folks to do low-confidence modeling – they additionally provide BIG theatres, BRIGHT spotlights, and PROJECTION. Behold: cultures are born.

- – -
anna v (11:15:02) “There is a greek proverb “hurry slowly”.”

A similar saying: “The hurrier I go, the behinder I get.”

- – -
anna v (05:19:11) “3) the other lags six months which is the plots I linked to above somewhere and is probably mostly of biologic origin together with surface currents turnover of hot and cold waters”

I’ve not spent much time studying CO2 data & literature, but this discussion and the one at …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/spencer-on-an-alternate-view-of-co2-increases
… have started to catch my interest. My question for anna v is:

When you say, “probably mostly of biologic origin together with surface currents turnover of hot and cold waters”, is this based on speculation? – on info which you have encountered? – (or something else?)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

1

The plot I linked to shows recent changes, where the rate of change does follow temperature. Now I agree that we should also see a flattening of the CO2 curve at some point, certainly not by the mechanism of the deep ocean, but by the absorption from the surface cooling oceans. We have to wait and see what the time scales are for this.

All these are handwaving models, they are just arguments to state that we do not know enough, do not have enough data or correct modeling to really know what we are doing.

There is a greek proverb “hurry slowly”. No rush decisions should be made bases on precarious handwaving arguments on either side. Wait and gather data.

“It is the use of a model [possibly outside of its confidence domain] that gets us in trouble.”

EXACTLY! The problem is GCMs and economic models are trying to model much more complex interactions than a bridge model (although that is still complex). The “confidence domain” of a GCM is probably very close to a null set.

But what produces the CO2 if it is not from the oceans (800year lag) that is tied into temperature, which has a delay of 6 months from the temperature?

I can then see that the slow climb out of an ice age would not produce a noticable CO2 increase on this time scale I this theory is assumed correct

OK. So now there is the killer of a problem. For the last decade or so the temperature has been falling and according to your theory the CO2 levels should have been reducing over the last 10 years (the rate of change of temperature is now negative)

So two problems
1. What is the rate of change of temperature doing to produce Co2?
2. Why has this theory been broken by the last decade?

this graph http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.jpg

would be a wiggle on the CO2 and temperature curves seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png too tiny to see. It is a transient response, to changes in temperature. In general one would expect the eco system to recover slowly from the ice age bottoms and the absolute scale of this transient effect would be much smaller than now that we are at a very warm and bio friendly age. Having most of the ocean covered by ice would also lead to this.

The six month one is too fast to see in the ice core records.
Totally disagree.
If the temp rises a couple of degrees the CO2 goes up by (currently) 100ppm
At the end of the ice age the temperature increased more than this and so the CO2 should have risen within 6 months by more than 100ppm. The temperature did not fall so the CO2 should have remained high until the 800 year co2 increase also kicked in.

Are you are suggesting that the rapid response CO2 increase is a transient. – temp rises – pushes co2 up within 6 month -temp continues to rise for 100 or so years – but CO2 suddenly falls back – temp continues to rise and stabilise for another few hundred years. – after 800 years total CO2 begins to rise from the sea output?

ie. is this what you are saying:

c ccccccccccccccccccc
c c
c c
ccccccccccccccccccc

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
t
tttttttttttttt

The first response of CO2 is a spike that does not record, the slow increase 800years later is what we see.

I would consider this a strange behaviour!

Computer models are only tools [and imperfect ones to boot - no matter how good]. In the end, our use of a tool must be tempered by common sense and economic consequences. And I agree with anna that there is no need to stop the SKY experiment, let it run and its result will be yet another piece of the overall picture. On the other hand, dismissing a paper on the sole grounds that it relies on a model is silly.

I agree that it is getting nowhere because you do not seem to be reading what I am writing.

1) There are at least two mechanisms

2) one takes 800 years because of the ocean botom currents turnaround

3) the other lags six months which is the plots I linked to above somewhere and is probably mostly of biologic origin together with surface currents turnover of hot and cold waters

The 800 one is too slow change to see in our Mauna Loa plots

The six month one is too fast to see in the ice core records.

What is so hard about this to understand?

Both mechanisms say that CO2 lags temperature..