This is another post from him about the Shakun el al paper, 'Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation', as reported in The Christian Science Monitor.
I have already posted on his immature treatment of this research and here he manages to under achieve compared to even that initial poor standard.
In his post he states;
"Antarctica … temperature increases … led … CO2"To the exclusion of all other data in the research. In the comments he insists;
"Shakun is not disputing the ice core data. Unless he can prove that ice core data is wrong his claims are as daft as you. "This research looks at a total of 80 climate proxies dating back to the last deglaciation as mapped in Figure 1 of the paper;
Because previous research had really only considered Antarctic proxies, (there are four considered in the paper), and showed temperate leading rising CO2 levels, Goddard refuses to accept the other 76 data sets because they are not telling him what he wants to believe.
Just to clarify his position, he is cherry picking just 5% of the data that confirms is ideological bias and is rejecting 95% of the data that might disagree with it!
I have now had a look at the full paper, (Thanks to Chris at Dosbat for the direct link), and the sequence of events that caused warming temperatures to lead CO2 in the Antarctic has been established.
Basically, Milankovitch cycles warmed the planet, just like the science has always said. This resulted in more Southern Hemisphere warming overall, which is why the Antarctic cores show warming first. This released CO2 from the oceans, which is why CO2 lags temperature in the Antarctic cores. The released CO2 was an additional driver of further warming, now globally, which is why the other proxies show this.
The basic science has not changed. Shakun’s paper just fills in some details, but clearly Goddard doesn’t want to understand the research.
For far better reviews of this paper instead of the rather simplistic view I have given here I recommend both Dosbat and Skeptical Science.
So you're saying that increased CO2 caused the warming and that what caused the increase in CO2 was... the warming?
ReplyDeleteYou do understand that if there is already warming (from Milankovitch Cycles or whatever) then the resulting increase in CO2 is an EFFECT of warming, not a Cause of it, don't you?
Yes, that CO2 may enhance the warming, but it didn't start it. That's what Cause means. If CO2 was a cause of warming it wouldn't need the warming to start first.
I can't really add to what Chris has said.
DeleteThe Shakun paper does not say "CO2 caused the warming and that what caused the increase in CO2 was... the warming". Orbital factors caused an initial forcing toward warmer temperatures which released CO2 causing a positive feedback driving further warming. That is not what I or Chris is saying, that is what the scientific research concludes.
You should also note that this was the situation during the last deglaciation, not every deglaciation and NOT current warming.
Schitzree,
ReplyDeleteNobody is saying CO2 started the warming.
Everyone agrees that the Milankovitch Cycles are responsible for starting the warming (the rate of change of ice sheet area correlates highly with M Cycles driven insolation changes).
The fact that you have to resort to pathetic straw man arguments shows you have nothing of value to say.
Well, I'd hate to be making a Straw Man argument, but if you and Lazarus aren't arguing that CO2 increased first then I'm not really sure what you ARE arguing. The Title of Shakun el al's paper is 'Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation', just like Lazarus posted at the top of this article. "preceded" usually means "came first".
ReplyDeleteTo be blunt, This is starting to sound like a false argument. BOTH side are saying that the warming started first. BOTH sides are stating that the resulting increase in CO2 probably amplified the warming. what is the disagreement?
"what is the disagreement?"
DeleteNone from me. The science remains unchanged. During the last deglaciation Milankovitch Cycles appear to be the initial trigger fuelled by the release of CO2 which caused the real warming trend. So I can't figure out why denier sites like Goddard's and others are getting so wound up over this research.
Perhaps it is the additional evidence that CO2 can be responsible for a major warming event and deglaciation just as the current scientists say is happening now, that has got them all a flutter.
Schitree,
Delete"BOTH side are saying that the warming started first. BOTH sides are stating that the resulting increase in CO2 probably amplified the warming. what is the disagreement?"
I'm not sure everyone is saying what you attribute to both sides. But as the paper is really an open and shut case I don't think those who don't believe CO2 can cause warming have a leg to stand on. So I agree, I wouldn't have an argument with your position as stated above.