Since Hansen can't be bothered to use CO2 estimates (or he cherrypicks them when he wants to)...

... here are ALL the reliable CO2 estimates going back in time.

First, the last 25 million years which should be shocking to most. CO2 has been right around 280 ppm for the past 24 million years (probably because C4 grasses evolved around this time and have a great ability to sequester Carbon in soil).

CeeBee should have no ability to understand this chart given it was significantly warmer over most of the last 24 million years than it was in 1750.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5300/co2last25mys.png




The last 150 million years. There really is NO correlation to temperatures over this period. The Cretaceous was 9C warmer at 100 million years ago then only 3C warmer starting about 110 million years ago. There was an ice age at 156 million years ago when CO2 was very high. Antarctic glaciated over when CO2 was very high, almost the highest in the period at 1,400 ppm.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2633/co2last150mys.png




And then going back 750 million years. Note the Ordivician Ice Age/Extinction occured at 443 million years ago when CO2 was 4,400 ppm. The Permian extinction occured 15 million years after CO2 levels had already declined. The last two Snowball Earth episodes occured when CO2 was 12,000 ppm and 5,000 ppm (it needed to be about 300,000 ppm to break up the Snowballs but that obviously did not happen - continental arrangements, resulting ocean currents, high-Albedo glaciers on land at the poles, and overall the Albedo of the planet explains all of the temperature changes which occurred versus the CO2 levels.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7295/co2last750mys.png





Spread these charts around since almost noone understands this has been the case (especially climate scientists).

There's many errors with your post Bill. Sloppy work.

1) Hansen used CO2 numbers from (Luthi et al., 2008) and CH4 (Loulergue et al., 2008)

He also used data from Beerling D.J. & Royer D.L. 2011 Convergent Cenozoic CO2 history

2) Hansen didn't use Zachos 2005 dO18 data, he used data from Zachos et al., 2008

3) Contrary to your claims that there is nothing on albedo I'll quote this section from the paper.



It's so very easy to wave your hands about declaring the paper to be garbage - but it's much much harder to actually prove that it is garbage. Looking forward to your detailed rebuttal. Supply references too please, Hansen lists his so it's the least you can do.

Bill did you ever get around to correcting your blunder on Goddards blog?

You said Richard Alley said 20.0C per doubling is possible. Alley actually said 8 or 9 degrees Centigrade per doubling is possible.





Richard Alley said:

“I believe that Mr. Gillis inadvertently made a small numerical error in quoting me. In addition, I have received inquiries via e-mail indicating that versions of this post are circulating in which a punctuation error attributes to me a statement that was made by Mr. Gillis.

The effect of these two issues is to make it appear that I disagree with the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or that I somehow have made a new contribution to our understanding of climate sensitivity.

In fact, I have not made any new contribution, and I continue to believe that the assessments of the IPCC, and the National Academy of Sciences, provide our best guide to the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. My statements were intended to communicate the assessed science.

The interested reader might start with Figure 1 in Box 10.2 in chapter 10 of the I.P.C.C. Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report. The best estimate of climate sensitivity is near 3 degrees Centigrade of warming, or 5 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, for equilibrium response to doubled CO2, but with an uncertainty range that extends further to higher values than to lower ones. As shown there, if one wants to be highly confident that the stated uncertainty range includes all possibilities, sensitivity as high as 8 or 9 degrees Centigrade, or 14 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit, is at least slightly possible based on some analyses. Proper quantification is given there and in the references cited by the I.P.C.C. report.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/climate-change-and-balanced-coverage/

Moderators - i would like confirmation that we can now attack each other on a personal level as above?

It seems fairly clear that when the line between fact and fiction (and what they really are as opposed to simply an opinion on what they are) is blurred, that has the potential to confuse everyone. This is why we have numerous things such as values, ethics and standards in place to avoid this. The question is do we apply those principals in the face of confusion generated by lack of understanding the difference between fact and fiction, or do we leave it? I’ll leave the question open for debate…

At the moment (in my opinion) this debate is degenerating (or already has degenerated) like I cannot fathom. A shambles would probably an inadequate description. I sincerely hope more courtesy is shown, regardless.

You cant be serious CeeBee..the only data sets to show warming are adjusted data sets since 1998. UAH and RSS shows slight cooling since the Super Nino.

Not going to bother posting the graphs because it will be just a time wasting exercise, one that people who use their real names dont have time to do.

Agreed Anthony and I have changed my forum name to my real name, not that anyone who viewed my profile couldn't have found out what it was anyway just by looking at my website, unlike certain members who choose to remain as anomymous as possible to hide their true identity, location etc.

I have been honest and forth comming in my stance on cAGW and the reasons why I don't believe the science behind it or the scientists who are pushing it.

Do you still claim that GISS showed cooling since 1930 until it was adjusted?

Did you read the reasons for the adjustments and can you clearly state your objections to the all of the adjustments?

Can you show proof to back up your claims that GISS showed cooling since 1930?

It's simply not good enough to make claims without a decent argument to back them up.

Here's the link that explains the reasons for making adjustments to GISS.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/

Bill Illis makes disparaging remarks about climate scientists all over the internet. He accuses Richard Alley as having "compromised mathematical abilities" when he himself is the one that made the mistake!

He calls papers "garbage" whilst making errors about the papers references and data.

It is legitimate to call out Bill on the errors he is making.

It is not attacking him by pointing out those errors.

The least he can do is acknowledge his errors and correct them.

Can't we have civil decent respectful conversation on here, instead of this gossipy & disrespectful, at times pointless nit-picking stuff all the time!?

We used to have nice quiet civillised discussions, explored all sorts of theories and used the thread for what it was originally created for, to post news items, share information, answer questions, do research for people who asked for it.

Not as a personal sounding board and a means of trolling the forum, creating angst and generally making life miserable for people who stand up to him and a getting banned for it.

Those three graphs are very handy if they are authentic, Bill.
Can you cite the source, please?

Antarctic Epica DomeC ice cores, Pagani 2005, Pagani 2008, Berner GeoCarb III, Royer 2004, Royer 2006, IPCC AR4, Pearson 2000, Pearson 2009, Triparti 2009, Boa 2008, Honisch 2009, Beerling and Royer 2011.

[As I said, I am exluding one particular methodology, paleosols or fossil soils, since these have been shown to depend on the time of the year they were laid down and this varies greatly throughout the year. Hence they are not reliable. They produced huge variations anyway with 5,000 ppm and Zeros quite often. They are included in Beerling and Royer 2011 even though Royer wrote a comment in a journal in 2011 in response to the orginal paper discussing the seasonality problem noting they may not be reliable]

Here is Hansen's data - Temperature according to his formulae and CO2 at 3.0C per doubling from the ice cores and Beerling and Royer 2011. I note he did not show this chart.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1857/hansentempvsco265mys.png

The original article said 18 to 20 degrees of warming.

I don't care if it was degrees F, and he only meant 16 degrees, that is so far out there. He is a climate scientist who has worked with the data and he knows what the range is (in F or C or whatever).

Are you aware that the UAH data is also adjusted and that there are problems with those adjustments?

This recent article discusses those problems.



http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/...e-models-closer

Thanks for clearing that up Bill. It's important that we stick to facts and do not fabricate an argument that is based on false claims.

Richard Alley is a highly respected scientist with an impeccable record. One does not reach his exalted position of Evan Pugh Professor with "compromised mathematical abilities"!

Evan Pugh or whatever esteemed title , if he is Human then he's open to mistakes . Given .....

I'm going to make a few more comments about Hansen's paper but bear with me as you might find it informative.

First, when one is using the do18 isotope data, one has to understand that the data becomes increasingly distorted as one goes back farther in time. The sedimentary layers that the isotopes are measured from, suffer from periodic diagenesis, most likely from fresh water flushing into the layer. Consequently, the do18 isotopes become progressively more negative in the historic record and our estimates of temperature become increasingly higher as we go back farther in time, so much so, that it becomes unrealistic.

This impact must be removed, typically through linear detrending. Now it is not known if the frequency of the diagenesis events is constant through time so that linear works (maybe there are periods when it is more rapid, periods when it is less rapid), but going through the whole record, it looks very close to just a linear change. Everyone who has worked with this data has ended up at this point - Veizer, Royer, Berner, Robert Rhode of Global Warming Art and Berekely Earth, and Bill Illis.

This impact needs to be accounted for even in Zachos 2001 do18 isotopes going back only 67 million years. If it is linear over time, then it shows up at 67 million years ago as well.

This is why I said Hansen's temperature estimates were off by 66% and why I kept saying the Cretaceous was only +9.0C.

So we can compare Hansen's temperature formula with Veizer's long do18 isotope database. It is basically the same as Zachos except it goes back to 527 million years and back to 3.25 billion years even.

So we can see Hansen's numbers are off by quite a bit since the formulae do not work as we go back farther in time. My reconstruction would be generally accepted with 1 million year gaussian smooth (to increase the resolution) which is much tighter than most other estimates which have been done at 50 million years and 3 million years.[I've put Hansens's formulae on the same 1 million smooth beyond the 67 million years].


http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/7563/hansentempvsco2527mys.png





And we can take the methodology and go back 3.25 billion years. Now we see several Snowball Earth episodes. Mainly centred around 635 Mya, 750 Mya, 2.1 Bya and 2.4 Bya. These are all recognized in paleoclimate history. In this dataset, there is another long one at 1.6 Bya and 1.15 Bya but these have not been shown in the record. Let's remember that the Sun was about 15% less luminous 2.5 Bya so it would not be unexpected to find much more ice ages in the past.

But mainly, these ice ages seem to occur when the landmasses are centred over the pole. At 635 Mya, for example, almost all the continents are locked together over the South Pole. Glaciers build up at the pole, spread out over the land which is now nearly continuous, reflect more sunlight and so on. Eventually, the entire panet other than the tropics is coverd in ice. Tha planet's Albedo rises to 50%. Snowball ends when the super-continents over the poles break up and move toward the equator.

Hansen has some Albedo numbers for the last 800,00 years but he does not seem to use any for any other time periods (commented on by CeeBee). It is extremely important since +/- 5% change in Albedo can be +/- 5C.

I believe this is the first time this method has been extended back beyond 526 Mya and into the billions of years ago.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1306/tempvsco2325bys.png

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3659
Evidence for Negative Water Feedback
Abstract: Positive linear climate feedback for combined water effects is shown to be incompatible with the Faint Sun Paradox. In particular, feedback values of ~2.0 W/m2K-1 favored by current GCM models lead to non physical results at solar radiation levels present one billion years ago.

A simple model is described whereby Earth like planets with large liquid water surfaces can self-regulate temperature for small changes in incident solar radiation. The model assumes that reflective cloud cover increases while normalized greenhouse effects decrease as the sun brightens. Net water feedback of the model is strongly negative. Direct evidence for negative water feedback is found in CRUTEM4 station data by comparing temperature anomalies for arid regions (deserts and polar regions) with those for humid regions (mainly saturated tropics).

All 5600 weather stations were classified according to the Köppen-Geiger climatology [9]. Two separate temperature anomaly series from 1900 to 2011 were calculated for each region. A clear difference in temperature response is observed. Assuming the difference is due to atmospheric water content, a water feedback value of -1.5 +/- 0.8 W/m2K-1 can be derived.


Click on the link above for the rest of the article and graphs.