I received this press release via email. The title is:
Carbon Dioxide Has Played Leading Role in Dictating Global Climate Patterns
OK, so I read.
Increasingly, the Earth’s climate appears to be more connected than anyone would have imagined. El Niño, the weather pattern that originates in a patch of the equatorial Pacific, can spawn heat waves and droughts as far away as Africa.
Now, a research team led by Brown University has established that the climate in the tropics over at least the last 2.7 million years changed in lockstep with the cyclical spread and retreat of ice sheets thousands of miles away in the Northern Hemisphere. The findings appear to cement the link between the recent Ice Ages and temperature changes in tropical oceans.
Apparently, I must not understand something. The study seems to trumpet as a huge finding that tropical ocean temperatures on Earth dropped at the same time that temperatures dropped in the upper latitudes and Earth experienced ice age glaciation. Uh, OK. Is it really surprising that when part of the Earth got much colder, other parts of the Earth got colder too.? Isn’t the simplest explanation that whatever made it cold in the poles made it cold at the equator too? Wouldn’t a solar change act this way?
The research team, including scientists from Luther College in Iowa, Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and the University of Hong Kong, analyzed cores taken from the seabed at four locations in the tropical oceans: the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, the eastern Pacific and the equatorial Atlantic Ocean.
The cores tell the story. Sedimentary cores taken from the ocean floor in four locations show that climate patterns in the tropics have mirrored Ice Age cycles for the last 2.7 million years and that carbon dioxide has played the leading role in determining global climate patterns. The researchers zeroed in on tropical ocean surface temperatures because these vast bodies, which make up roughly half of the world’s oceans, in large measure orchestrate the amount of water in the atmosphere and thus rainfall patterns worldwide, as well as the concentration of water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Looking at the chemical remains of tiny marine organisms that lived in the sunlit zone of the ocean, the scientists were able to extract the surface temperature for the oceans for the last 3.5 million years, well before the beginning of the Ice Ages. Beginning about 2.7 million years ago, the geologists found that tropical ocean surface temperatures dropped by 1 to 3 degrees C (1.8 to 5.4 F) during each Ice Age, when ice sheets spread in the Northern Hemisphere and significantly cooled oceans in the northern latitudes. Even more compelling, the tropics also changed when Ice Age cycles switched from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
Again, so what? What am I missing here guys? Why is this astonishing? But the interesting part to me is that all the data is on developping a proxy for sea surface temperatures. Don’t know if it is accurate, but it seems a good endeavor. Fully worthwhile of the effort.
But remember the title. What about CO2? And through the article we keep getting teasers like this:
Based on that new link, the scientists conclude that carbon dioxide has played the lead role in dictating global climate patterns, beginning with the Ice Ages and continuing today.
And this
Candace Major of the National Science Foundation agrees: “This research certainly supports the idea of global sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide as the first order of control on global temperature patterns,” she says. “It also points to a strong sensitivity of global temperature to the levels of greenhouse gases on very long timescales, and shows that resulting climatic impacts are felt from the tropics to the poles.”
All they did was develop a tropical temperature proxy and show the tropics got colder during ice ages. Duh. I mean, isn’t this really just a reality check — we developed a proxy and we think its pretty good because the temperatures drop right when we think they should. I kept waiting for the evidence that CO2 had anything to do with this. This is all I get, and comes not from their study but a link to data from a completely different data set having nothing to do with their study:
Climate scientists have a record of carbon dioxide levels for the last 800,000 years–spanning the last seven Ice Ages–from ice cores taken in Antarctica. They have deduced that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell by about 30 percent during each cycle, and that most of that carbon dioxide was absorbed by high-latitude oceans such as the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. According to the new findings, this pattern began 2.7 million years ago, and the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans has intensified with each successive Ice Age. Geologists know the Ice Ages have gotten progressively colder–leading to larger ice sheets–because they have found debris on the seabed of the North Atlantic and North Pacific left by icebergs that broke from the land-bound sheets.
“It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said.
What? How does he determine this? My sense is that we are back to the old 800-year lag / ice core issue where scientists are confusing cause and effect between temperature and CO2 levels. I am willing to credit dropping CO2 levels (through ocean absorption) as a positive feedback effect, though I would argue that it is small just as they seem to argue that it is large. The key, though, is that nothing in their data supports a sensitivity number for CO2 at all, just a rough possible causal relationship where even the direction of the causation is unknown.
One fatal flaw of this argument is that while people can make an argument for CO2 as an amplifier (either weak or strong), no one can explain how it might trigger the beginning of an Ice Age or warming recovery, and without this there is no way to call CO2 the main driver of these changes. Maybe these guys have found the evidence of the trigger?
Herbert acknowledges that the team’s findings leave important questions. One is why carbon dioxide began to play a major role when the Ice Ages began 2.7 million years ago. Also left unanswered is why carbon dioxide appears to have magnified the intensity of successive Ice Ages from the beginning of the cycles to the present. The researchers do not understand why the timing of the Ice Age cycles shifted from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
Oops, maybe not. But surely they understand the mechanism
“We think we have the simplest explanation for the link between the Ice Ages and the tropics over that time and the apparent role of carbon dioxide in the intensification of Ice Ages and corresponding changes in the tropics,” said Timothy Herbert of Brown University and the lead author of the paper in Science. Herbert added, “but we don’t know why. The answer lies in the ocean, we’re pretty sure.”
Oops, maybe not.
OK, as a public service, I will create a more truthful summary of the study:
Some clever scientists discovered a way to use the remains of marine organisms in core samples to develop a proxy for ocean surface temperatures over the last 2.7 million years. These temperature proxies seem to reality check well, dropping during exactly the periods we believe to have been ice ages. The reconstructed temperature record is not inconsistent with theories of high climate sensitivity to CO2, which, though the scientists did not actually study the problem, they felt the need to mention to get attention and funding.
Sarcasm and derision are not the same thing as skepticism. You think maybe if you read the actual study some of your doubts might be put to rest? Naw… why bother. Your “sense” tells you that you know *much* better than trained experts what’s really going on.
I claim that global warming is caused by sugarplum fairies.
An external source starts the warming which is multiplied by positive feedback and amplified by water vapor .
As it warms the sugarplum fairies multiply so we find more of their bodies in the ice cores 800 years later.
I claim that the sugarplum fairies are enhancing the warming, but since the source of the warming is unknown we can’t be certain how much warming would occur without our sugarplum fairies ! How can we tell how much if any amplification is caused by fairies.
Even with satellite’s going around the world today we cannot be certain how much warming to attribute to fairies, but thousands of years ago we can be certain ! Amazing !
How in the world can we tell how much the sugarplum fairies have enhanced the warming ?? [.00001 % ? or 50 % it makes a huge difference]
The reasoning is circular.
The argument seems to be:
CO2 was there CO2 is a GHG so CO2 caused warming QED ! [Or better yet W^5 — Which Was What We Wanted.]
Bob, if your reading comprehension can not see the *vagueness* in that article, then your *intuition* is seriously failing you.
“More funding, please!”…
“It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said…
“…along with water vapor feedback,”, I found that quite tidy. I wonder why it was needed when you have a “first order feedback” like CO2?
Bob: More would read the citation if we were not being billed twice- once in our tax dollar grants and again for a $30 to $50 fee to read the Journal published study we paid for. As a consequence – scientists must pay more attention to their press releases and this press release strikes me as described in the post. The researcher’s quote we know its CO2 but don’t know why we know is priceless.
Here is the quote from the abstract:
Hence, the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics; instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
I love the word “probably”. So how does an ice locked world produce CO2 needed to unlock an ice locked world? We probably don’t know.
Let’s read the whole thing –
Increasingly, the Earth’s climate appears to be more connected than anyone would have imagined. El Niño, the weather pattern that originates in a patch of the equatorial Pacific, can spawn heat waves and droughts as far away as Africa.
Now, a research team led by Brown University has established that the climate in the tropics over at least the last 2.7 million years changed in lockstep with the cyclical spread and retreat of ice sheets thousands of miles away in the Northern Hemisphere. The findings appear to cement the link between the recent Ice Ages and temperature changes in tropical oceans. Based on that new link, the scientists conclude that carbon dioxide has played the lead role in dictating global climate patterns, beginning with the Ice Ages and continuing today.
“We think we have the simplest explanation for the link between the Ice Ages and the tropics over that time and the apparent role of carbon dioxide in the intensification of Ice Ages and corresponding changes in the tropics,” said Timothy Herbert of Brown University and the lead author of the paper in Science. Herbert added, “but we don’t know why. The answer lies in the ocean, we’re pretty sure.”
Candace Major of the National Science Foundation agrees: “This research certainly supports the idea of global sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide as the first order of control on global temperature patterns,” she says. “It also points to a strong sensitivity of global temperature to the levels of greenhouse gases on very long timescales, and shows that resulting climatic impacts are felt from the tropics to the poles.”
The research team, including scientists from Luther College in Iowa, Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and the University of Hong Kong, analyzed cores taken from the seabed at four locations in the tropical oceans: the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, the eastern Pacific and the equatorial Atlantic Ocean.
The cores tell the story. Sedimentary cores taken from the ocean floor in four locations show that climate patterns in the tropics have mirrored Ice Age cycles for the last 2.7 million years and that carbon dioxide has played the leading role in determining global climate patterns. The researchers zeroed in on tropical ocean surface temperatures because these vast bodies, which make up roughly half of the world’s oceans, in large measure orchestrate the amount of water in the atmosphere and thus rainfall patterns worldwide, as well as the concentration of water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Looking at the chemical remains of tiny marine organisms that lived in the sunlit zone of the ocean, the scientists were able to extract the surface temperature for the oceans for the last 3.5 million years, well before the beginning of the Ice Ages. Beginning about 2.7 million years ago, the geologists found that tropical ocean surface temperatures dropped by 1 to 3 degrees C (1.8 to 5.4 F) during each Ice Age, when ice sheets spread in the Northern Hemisphere and significantly cooled oceans in the northern latitudes. Even more compelling, the tropics also changed when Ice Age cycles switched from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
“The tropics are reproducing this pattern both in the cooling that accompanies the glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere and the timing of those changes,” Herbert said. “The biggest surprise to us was how similar the patterns looked all across the tropics since about 2.7 million years ago. We didn’t expect such similarity.”
Climate scientists have a record of carbon dioxide levels for the last 800,000 years–spanning the last seven Ice Ages–from ice cores taken in Antarctica. They have deduced that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell by about 30 percent during each cycle, and that most of that carbon dioxide was absorbed by high-latitude oceans such as the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. According to the new findings, this pattern began 2.7 million years ago, and the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans has intensified with each successive Ice Age. Geologists know the Ice Ages have gotten progressively colder–leading to larger ice sheets–because they have found debris on the seabed of the North Atlantic and North Pacific left by icebergs that broke from the land-bound sheets.
“It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said.
Herbert acknowledges that the team’s findings leave important questions. One is why carbon dioxide began to play a major role when the Ice Ages began 2.7 million years ago. Also left unanswered is why carbon dioxide appears to have magnified the intensity of successive Ice Ages from the beginning of the cycles to the present. The researchers do not understand why the timing of the Ice Age cycles shifted from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
Contributing authors are Laura Cleaveland Peterson at Luther College, Kira Lawrence at Lafayette College and Zhonghui Liu at the University of Hong Kong. The U.S. National Science Foundation and the Evolving Earth Foundation funded the research. The cores came from the Ocean Drilling Program, sponsored by the NSF, and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.
-NSF-
Media Contacts
Richard Lewis, Brown University (401) 863-3766 Richard_Lewis@Brown.edu
Lily Whiteman, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8310 lwhitema@nsf.gov
Program Contacts
Candace Major, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8580 cmajor@nsf.gov
Principal Investigators
Timothy Herbert, Brown University (401) 863-1207 Timothy_Herbert@Brown.Edu
Well, why not read the whole thing…?
Increasingly, the Earth’s climate appears to be more connected than anyone would have imagined. El Niño, the weather pattern that originates in a patch of the equatorial Pacific, can spawn heat waves and droughts as far away as Africa.
Now, a research team led by Brown University has established that the climate in the tropics over at least the last 2.7 million years changed in lockstep with the cyclical spread and retreat of ice sheets thousands of miles away in the Northern Hemisphere. The findings appear to cement the link between the recent Ice Ages and temperature changes in tropical oceans. Based on that new link, the scientists conclude that carbon dioxide has played the lead role in dictating global climate patterns, beginning with the Ice Ages and continuing today.
“We think we have the simplest explanation for the link between the Ice Ages and the tropics over that time and the apparent role of carbon dioxide in the intensification of Ice Ages and corresponding changes in the tropics,” said Timothy Herbert of Brown University and the lead author of the paper in Science. Herbert added, “but we don’t know why. The answer lies in the ocean, we’re pretty sure.”
Candace Major of the National Science Foundation agrees: “This research certainly supports the idea of global sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide as the first order of control on global temperature patterns,” she says. “It also points to a strong sensitivity of global temperature to the levels of greenhouse gases on very long timescales, and shows that resulting climatic impacts are felt from the tropics to the poles.”
The research team, including scientists from Luther College in Iowa, Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and the University of Hong Kong, analyzed cores taken from the seabed at four locations in the tropical oceans: the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, the eastern Pacific and the equatorial Atlantic Ocean.
Continued…
The cores tell the story. Sedimentary cores taken from the ocean floor in four locations show that climate patterns in the tropics have mirrored Ice Age cycles for the last 2.7 million years and that carbon dioxide has played the leading role in determining global climate patterns. The researchers zeroed in on tropical ocean surface temperatures because these vast bodies, which make up roughly half of the world’s oceans, in large measure orchestrate the amount of water in the atmosphere and thus rainfall patterns worldwide, as well as the concentration of water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Looking at the chemical remains of tiny marine organisms that lived in the sunlit zone of the ocean, the scientists were able to extract the surface temperature for the oceans for the last 3.5 million years, well before the beginning of the Ice Ages. Beginning about 2.7 million years ago, the geologists found that tropical ocean surface temperatures dropped by 1 to 3 degrees C (1.8 to 5.4 F) during each Ice Age, when ice sheets spread in the Northern Hemisphere and significantly cooled oceans in the northern latitudes. Even more compelling, the tropics also changed when Ice Age cycles switched from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
“The tropics are reproducing this pattern both in the cooling that accompanies the glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere and the timing of those changes,” Herbert said. “The biggest surprise to us was how similar the patterns looked all across the tropics since about 2.7 million years ago. We didn’t expect such similarity.”
Climate scientists have a record of carbon dioxide levels for the last 800,000 years–spanning the last seven Ice Ages–from ice cores taken in Antarctica. They have deduced that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell by about 30 percent during each cycle, and that most of that carbon dioxide was absorbed by high-latitude oceans such as the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean. According to the new findings, this pattern began 2.7 million years ago, and the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans has intensified with each successive Ice Age. Geologists know the Ice Ages have gotten progressively colder–leading to larger ice sheets–because they have found debris on the seabed of the North Atlantic and North Pacific left by icebergs that broke from the land-bound sheets.
“It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said.
Herbert acknowledges that the team’s findings leave important questions. One is why carbon dioxide began to play a major role when the Ice Ages began 2.7 million years ago. Also left unanswered is why carbon dioxide appears to have magnified the intensity of successive Ice Ages from the beginning of the cycles to the present. The researchers do not understand why the timing of the Ice Age cycles shifted from roughly 41,000-year to 100,000-year intervals.
Contributing authors are Laura Cleaveland Peterson at Luther College, Kira Lawrence at Lafayette College and Zhonghui Liu at the University of Hong Kong. The U.S. National Science Foundation and the Evolving Earth Foundation funded the research. The cores came from the Ocean Drilling Program, sponsored by the NSF, and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program.
-NSF-
And finally, you can actually contact these people and tell them what they are doing wrong:
Media Contacts
Richard Lewis, Brown University (401) 863-3766 Richard_Lewis@Brown.edu
Lily Whiteman, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8310 lwhitema@nsf.gov
Program Contacts
Candace Major, National Science Foundation (703) 292-8580 cmajor@nsf.gov
Principal Investigators
Timothy Herbert, Brown University (401) 863-1207 Timothy_Herbert@Brown.Edu
And finally, you can actually contact the people involved and tell them how they are wrong:
Principal Investigators
Timothy Herbert, Brown University (401) 863-1207 Timothy_Herbert@Brown.Edu
““It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said.”
***************
It is well known that as it cools more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. So CO2 going down is a likely effect of cooling.
This is one of the biggest blunders in Al Gore’s movie. He was talking about a different time span but the error is the same.
I have read dozens of explanations but they all have the same obvious holes in their logic.
I read a paper by Dr Hansen and all of the others are just rehashes of the same feeble article with no additional information.
1) Something else causes the warming
2) 800 years later CO2 seems to increase
3) This amplifies the warming . [by .000001 % ?]
[How much amplification and other than a blind assertion how do we know the amplification even happened. None of the dozen papers tried to give a logical explanation to this obvious question.]
4) When CO2 is at it’s maximum the temperature goes DOWN.
When I was undecided about CAGW the climate alarmists inability to answer these objections made me decide they didn’t have a clue. Were they so clueless that they didn’t think to answer these questions ? I doubt it. They just didn’t have any answers.
Why does the temperature go down when CO2 is at it’s maximum ?
Why does the study claim that it “seems likely” that it is the CAUSE ?
There is no explanation in Waldid’s post. They want it to be the cause so it is the cause !
[W^5 Which s what We Wanted]
Waldid,
Based off of your clippings of the article:
“Based on that new link, the scientists conclude that carbon dioxide has played the lead role in dictating global climate patterns”
Now, here, we have a little inconsistency. The lead of temperature over CO2 has been established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Now, besides contacting Dr. Brown, what part of “Carbon Dioxide Has Played Leading Role in Dictating Global Climate Patterns” is not odd or out of place.
If you have any particular insight into this article, please feel free to enlighten or discuss. I do admit, my dismissal was just what I read.
Waldid- Good job copying the press release! Perhaps you are missing the most important claim (also shown in Herberts 2001 Science study) each one of these interglacials over the last 2.7 million years is getting COLDER! Or Herbert’s claim from the 2001 Study that Sea Surface temperatures would need to rise another 4C before solely natural causes can be discounted. (Ouch!)
The fact that in neither the abstract nor the press release are the mechanisms involved in the turnaround of the 30% CO2 glaciation free fall even hinted at -means its not worth spending my money. (“Likely”, “probably” and “we’re pretty sure” are also give aways. I’m still seething for having been scammed into spending my money to read the Brown researcher’s Nature study on the climate change effects on Lake Tanganyika.
I don’t think any claims are being made here that the study is wrong about the paleo-climate record that links an interglacial period with a warmer tropics or that each glacial period had varying ice coverages (I got that info in my historical geology course some 40 years ago- just a chuckle about the crass grant groveling justifications that tries to tie it all to CO2.)
As I said earlier – tax payers paid for this study- it is therefore the grant recipient’s responsibility to do a better job in their summary to the tax paying owners of this research. In my business no employee or vendor (what these researchers are) would provide such a poorly supported overview like this to me more than once.
We do not understand what is going on, so it must be the miracle of God that caused this…..I mean CO2.
I have been reading books about the inter-connectedness of the world climate since I was a young boy.
I am pleased these guys have discovered the same.
It is amazing that the orbital cycles of the sun are no longer important drivers of climate, as we enter the age of CAGW. CO2 is all.
Another sign that this study is crap and that institutional science is out of control is that tax payer funded science articles are frequently no longer accessible to those who funded it.
Waldotroll, I find it fascinating that you think if you quote enough text of your holy writ you hope to prove its authenticity.
I can see that there would be ALBEDO feedbacks- It gets warmer due to some outside source like the sun, ice melts, decreasing earth’s albedo and further increasing the warming-likewise plants grow where ice used to be, further decreasing earth’s albedo, leading to a rapid melt as happened 10,000 years ago. With the original warming from the sun, and albedo feedbacks from melting ice, I don’t see much rooom for ANY CO2 feedback.
With those positive albedo feedbacks, why didn’t the glaciers keep on melting all the way up through Greenland? Right now only about 1.5 to 2% of earth’s surface exposed to the sun is covered by glaciers. I think we hit a stable equilibrium where any additional warming would lead to more clouds, more than offsetting negative albedo changes. Of course a COOLING, leading to more glaciers, a higher albedo, and a positive feedback giving even more cooling is still possible.
what stabilized the growth of the glaciers during the last ice age? Why didn’t we get a runaway icehouse earth all covered with glaciers? My guess is that somehow the Hadley circulation was affected, limiting the amount of water vapor transported to mid latitudes. With a lack of moisture, the further growth of those glaciers was impossible.
****”Waldotroll, I find it fascinating that you think if you quote enough text of your holy writ you hope to prove its authenticity.”
Well, hunter, I was simply posting the entire text of the press release Mr. Meyer takes issue with. Boy you are dumb.
@ intrepid_wanders
Forgive me, interpid, but my science background is not very deep, so perhaps you could explain to me what your Wikipedia graph means. It would seem to me that there is a pretty distinct correlation between CO2 and temperature – not the other way around (temperature does not “lead” CO2). I believe that you are implying that CO2 is a result of temperature, not a causation. Did I understand correctly?
@ Pat Moffitt
Ouch? Not sure what you are talking about above – Is this the Herbert paper: “California Coastal SST Collapse of the California Current During Glacial Maxima Linked to Climate Change on Land “?
Now, my question is – certainly the source you’ve cited (Herbert’s 2001 study of sea surface temps) is a valid paper, but you seem to think it contradicts the findings in the above press release. And you seem to believe Herbert is valid but the scientists in the press release are wrong.
Why? Since everyone of these people are bona fide scientists, why would you believe one study above another study?
****”I read a paper by Dr Hansen and all of the others are just rehashes of the same feeble article with no additional information. ”
Could you show us these?
Why not let Dr. Hansen know that you have discovered the problem with his paper[s]. His email is James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov.
Your moniker now links to a USA Today blog-host. But why for so long did it link back to CS and then a dead CS link?
Waldiddy:
This paper seems to be a support for Ruddman who proposed orbital elements initiated the glacial cycle (in accordance with Milankovitch) but that at some point in the melting phase CO2 becomes the principal warming component. (helping to explain the 41K cycle.) Herbert here seems to add water vapor along with CO2- without identifying the relative degree. I agree that the glacial cycles occur, that there were changes in the scope in glaciation over time and have no problem that a massive glacial retreat would also see a warmer tropics (don’t know how you could have a cooler tropics in an intergalcial) And I agree that water vapor may have played an essential role once orbital initiated warming commenced and that with the warming oceans of the interglacial one will see some increase in CO2.
I will also allow for some small increase in warming from adding CO2. But where is the evidence in this study that points to CO2 as the principal driver? It seems to be simply an assumption contingent on other climate forcing assumptions. As such- it has added nothing to our understanding of CO2s role in climate.
Also would like to know the explanation for the interglacials getting colder.
And as to Herbert’s 2001 paper- he seems to say current SST are well inside the range of natural variability. So how does one gain confidence seeing a CO2 signal within the complex natural variability?
Not dumb enough to buy into your bullshit, waldotroll.
Not dumb enough to think that quoting even more of a stupid ignorant press release makes it more credible.
CAGW belief, as you demonstrate so ably, requires a reduction in the ability to think critically.
whats up with that Waldo guy?
Anyway, is there new information on CO2:temp reconstructions. Last I heard, temperature lead CO2. But I’ve read some assertions that it’s now the other way ’round. New data or just the same old argument, I’m not sure.
Anybody know?
The article said
““It seems likely that changes in carbon dioxide were the most important reason why tropical temperatures changed, along with the water vapor feedback,” Herbert said.”
***************
One of the major holes in the CO2 caused the temperature change argument has always been that the temperature changed first and the CO2 change has been a result of that change.
The verbal tap dance the climate alarmists do to dance around this inconvenient truth is really funny.
1) Something else started the warming
2) 800 years later CO2 came out of the oceans
3) This CO2 caused warming.
[This is the old CO2 is a GHG, CO2 was there, therefore CO2 caused warming fallacy.]
[How do you know there was any warming caused at all ?]
[ How much ? .000001 ° C ? ]
4) When the CO2 was at it’s highest level temperatures began to cool.
[oops ! That suggests that natural causes are much stronger than CO2]
If you knew how much temperature rise a Milankovitch cycle caused [which we don’t] and you knew how much rise water vapor feedback caused [which we don’t] you could then subtract these two values from the total warming to find CO2’s contribution. If there is another method ? None of the 20 + papers I have read had even a hint at how it might be done. Any guesses Wally ?
Friggin’ carbon-teases.
Ah! Thank you, Pat Moffitt – an actual explanation that I can understand! And, better yet, an honest one (probably)! So very often the peeps here attempt to fling pseudo-scientific-gibberish (no names – you know who you are) in an attempt at obstructionism, self-delusion, self-aggrandizement, or just plain ol’ B.S.
If I understand correctly, you posit that first there is a melting event brought on by “orbital elements” (I believe this refers to our relative proximity to the sun within a larger orbital cycle?) which releases CO2 (because the ocean absorbs CO2 when it is colder, no?) which then results in CO2 becoming a warming element in the atmosphere (and it is accepted that CO2 is a GHG) but that you are unconvinced that CO2 is the driving element in the scenarios described in the press release. Do I understand? Very interesting.
Would that there was more of this here.
And the Herbert paper (did I find the correct paper?) posits that sea surface temps in this era are with the range of natural cycles – so how can anyone be sure that CO2 is changing climate from within the complex interplay of natural elements?
Again, however, I have to ask , why do you find Herbert the definitive source. Aren’t there other sources which contradict or at least complicate this idea?
I am assuming that you’ve actually read the paper in Science?
“Apparently, I must not understand something”
A most spectacular understatement.
Well, my man hunter, let’s see – what does Mr. Meyer say?
****“The study seems to trumpet as a huge finding that tropical ocean temperatures on Earth dropped at the same time that temperatures dropped in the upper latitudes and Earth experienced ice age glaciation. Uh, OK. Is it really surprising that when part of the Earth got much colder, other parts of the Earth got colder too?”
Perhaps not. But then again, my understanding of science is that one studies the evidence first and then draws conclusions from what one finds. I suppose we could all simply assume that the world systems work the way they should, that the tropics get colder when the arctic regions get colder – but then again, one could suppose the world is flat and be done with that darn space program which is costing all these poor tax-payers scads of money or perhaps all these stupid doctors are trying to bilk us and all we need to do is get our humors in balance.
Or perhaps Mr. Meyer would like to do his own research into the subject instead of trying to tear down other, more qualified peoples’?
****“Isn’t the simplest explanation that whatever made it cold in the poles made it cold at the equator too?”
Sure, but does that mean it is the correct explanation.
****“Wouldn’t a solar change act this way?”
Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. It would seem we do not have a good understanding about how the solar cycles affect the Earth’s atmosphere.
****“What am I missing here guys? Why is this astonishing?”
I do not know what you are missing, Mr. Meyer. You know, I scanned the release for the word “astonishing” but did not find it. Is Mr. Meyer exaggerating as a form of hyperbole? Much denialist rhetoric circles around the exaggeration as a form of derision.
“But the interesting part to me is that all the data is on developping a proxy for sea surface temperatures. Don’t know if it is accurate, but it seems a good endeavor. Fully worthwhile of the effort.”
Let us hope so.
“All they did was develop a tropical temperature proxy and show the tropics got colder during ice ages. Duh. I mean, isn’t this really just a reality check — we developed a proxy and we think its pretty good because the temperatures drop right when we think they should.”
Didn’t know that “Duh” was scientific terminology…oh wait, Mr. Meyer is simply using an interjection to show how objective he is. Okay. I am not sure, however, what problem the objective Mr. Meyer has with the development of this particular proxy? The scientists in question have established a relationship between regions of the glob via proxy – is that really deserving of a “Duh”? Mr. Meyer, why are you writing this post?
****“ I kept waiting for the evidence that CO2 had anything to do with this. This is all I get, and comes not from their study but a link to data from a completely different data set having nothing to do with their study”
This is another one where I wonder what Mr. Meyer’s problem is. Correct me, but isn’t it pretty standard practice to utilize other peoples’ research to augment or inform one’s own research? And doesn’t the 800k arctic ice proxy study indicate a correlation? Specifically: “They have deduced that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere fell by about 30 percent during each cycle, and that most of that carbon dioxide was absorbed by high-latitude oceans such as the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean.” Isn’t that significant? It would seem that Mr. Meyer is simply finding a reason to nitpick, whether or not it is a valid critique.
“My sense is that we are back to the old 800-year lag / ice core issue where scientists are confusing cause and effect between temperature and CO2 levels.”
Those dumb scientists! I do have to wonder why someone doesn’t tell them where they’ve screwed up – after all, it’s pretty weak to make the charge here, well away from the criticism of the professionals, particularly when the scientists’ emails are only a click away. Doesn’t seem to bother the peeps here, however…
**** “I am willing to credit dropping CO2 levels (through ocean absorption) as a positive feedback effect, though I would argue that it is small just as they seem to argue that it is large.”
Hmmmm…large or small feedback effect – who should we believe? Who? I wonder. Who is more qualified?
**** “The key, though, is that nothing in their data supports a sensitivity number for CO2 at all, just a rough possible causal relationship where even the direction of the causation is unknown.”
I would feel much better about this statement if we could trust Mr. Meyer more, if we were sure he’d actually read the paper and not (as hunter so intelligently expressed) “stupid ignorant press release,” if we were sure he knew what he was posting about, and if we could be sure his Libertarian leanings weren’t influencing his ‘science.’
**** “One fatal flaw of this argument is that while people can make an argument for CO2 as an amplifier (either weak or strong), no one can explain how it might trigger the beginning of an Ice Age or warming recovery, and without this there is no way to call CO2 the main driver of these changes. Maybe these guys have found the evidence of the trigger?”
So there’s something unknown. Therefore everything is unknown. I wonder what will happen if “they” do find the trigger – will Mr. Meyer shrug his shoulders and admit that he’s wrong? Or will he come out with another nit-picking, generalized, un-researched post on how “they” are wrong?
Sad folks.
**** “whats up with that Waldo guy?”
An excellent question, kdk33!!
In short, I am fighting for truth, justice, and the American way!
Thanks for asking, Waldo
There is no logical fallacy so simple that climate alarmists can understand it.
The “CO2 was there, CO2 is a GHG so CO2 caused warming ” fallacy is an excellent example.
Circular reasoning is the only kind of reasoning they are capable of.
I will try one more time despite having been civil to you and being rewarded for same with your questioning my honesty.
CO2 as the driving force of climate requires us to understand the other forcing components. But we don’t. As evidence
the IPCC AG4 -WG1 Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU)
-— Radiative forcing components- low
— Aerosols -med.
— Surface Albedo- med to low
–Solar irradiance- low
Most people fail to appreciate the IPCC says the models are nothing more than scenarios given a set of assumptions about which we have very little understanding. Bottom line- if our understanding of radiative forcing, solar irradiance, albedo and aerosols are low so must our understanding of the role of CO2. Mr. Meyer exasperation is more than warranted with this continuing onslaught of unsupported claims about CO2. If you don’t understand the principal system components then you don’t understand the system.
I don’t know how old you are but if you are my age- you have been down this road before. Acid rain models and alarmism relied on models that held that declines in surface water pH were the result of acid precipitation– a strict mineral titration explanation. Hundreds of papers then followed about how acid rain was killing everything from trees to Atlantic salmon. The problem is and was that the simple mineral titration theory is wrong. Surface acidification was in fact most influenced by the regrowth in the last century of forests and bogs and the associated increase of organic acids. (As a test pour some distilled water through peat moss and measure the pH) Our tendency to put out forest fires has also disrupted the natural fire cycle which returned alkaline ash to the system. Now we had known about these “natural” modifiers of pH but they did not fit with the politics. The US NAPAP study (Acid rain Study) interim report did not support the alarmist claims of acid rain and Congress rather than being relieved we were not all doomed- verbally attacked the head of NAPAP L. Kulp and forced him to resign. The new head of NAPAP James Mahoney was hired only after he assured Rep Scheuer’s House subcommittee on Natural Resources that he “would not subscribe…at this time” to the view that acid rain would not harm any more Northeastern lakes.” Despite this assurance the mineral titration theory was so flawed that they could not blame it on acid rain in the final report. EPA as a result refused to release the report until it was certain that the revisions of the Clean Air act would be passed. CBS 60 Minutes interviewed one of the world’s leading soil scientists Ed Krug who had worked on the NAPAP study who took strong exception to the acid rain alarmism and immediately following the broadcast was slandered by EPA. A blacklisting soon followed. The same 60 minute broadcast also interviewed David Hawkins, a former EPA administrator who is now with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Hawkins simply dismissed the NAPAP study as irrelevant, stressing that the NRDC had always ignored NAPAP and had concentrated, instead, on policy making based upon the assumption that acid rain was an environmental disaster. “The environmental community has spent almost no effort attempting to even monitor the progress [of NAPAP]….We have been working on trying to get legislation in Washington.”
The message had been clearly sent- there would be no dispute with government science. (As it had been earlier to people like Dr Ames on toxicity) The joke at the time was that there would be no NAPAP for global warming. It was no joke. Climate was starting to replace acid rain- Dr Happer was removed from Dept of Energy because he disrespected CO2 and here we are again. As one positive side- ED Krugs position on organic acids is gaining new credence– as the result of climate change!
So Herbert’s paper here is no different than the hundreds during acid rain–all based on assumption as fact. And the assumptions follow grant availability which is necessary for tenure. And some of us are really getting tired of it.
I am not usually surprised by the posts here at CS (in fact, generally the comments here play like a scratch on an old record) but this caught me off guard –
**** “I will try one more time despite having been civil to you and being rewarded for same with your questioning my honesty.” ****
I apologize, Pat Moffitt, I did not mean to impugn your honesty (because I did believe your post above was honest), but there have been a great many posters who like to play the scientist (see netdr above) and pull the wool over my humble eyes, so I am fairly distrustful of the commentary on this site. Or perhaps my persona here precedes me – but I generally respond to posters in the manner to which they respond to me, for whatever that’s worth.
Now, I should say I am not going to simply buy into whatever you post – I will look into your claims whenever possible – so if you are simply looking to post unchallenged we may not have a very good online relationship. Nevertheless, I appreciate that you give a balanced commentary that does not include a ridiculously one-sided KO attempt on the world’s scientists.
Are you the Pat Moffitt of CFM Inc and U.S. Water? Have you also posted a number of times on a number of different blogs about acid rain?
Waldosorry:
Yes. Curious as to why people are afraid to acknowledge who they are.
The world has been down this path before. If CO2 alarmism studies are all that is funded that is the type of studies you will get. If the study is done and no negative consequences are found there will be no more funding.
Who needs a conspiracy ? Individuals following their own self interest will suffice nicely.
Lysenkoism is a perfect example of the bandwagon effect run amuck just as Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming [CAGW] has.
Lysenkoism was a scientific concept that acquired traits could be passed from parent to child. We now know this cannot be true but all scientific societies in Russia at one time endorsed this flawed concept.
Learned papers were written and awards given for those that favored Lysenkoism and writing a paper or doing an experiment that might disprove Lysenkoism was a way to end a career.
There are a few exceptions such as professors with tenure or secure jobs but they are in the minority.
A list of a dozen learned societies which endorsed Lysenkoism would be easy to compile since they all depended upon the government for funding and the government was in love with the theory. Just like Obama and his cronies.
The head of Russia [Stalin] was behind it 100 % and since the state was the main source of funds for research studies were done that validated the theory. Those that were skeptical of the theory were “branded deniers” or tools of the capitalists [big oil].
Since only studies which validated the theory were done and since all studies showed what was wanted lysenkoism became more and more accepted.
The parallels between lysenkoism and global warming are so obvious that only the blind cannot see them. The scientific process can be and has been bent to the will of the politicians by the simple use of money and fame.
I notice that waldo never has answered the “CO2 was there, CO2 is a GHG therefore CO2 caused warming” fallacy. Perhaps he can not !
Show that CO2 actually caused warming and that it was measured not computed if you can. I am certain that you cannot or you would have done so by now.
An interesting article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627645.300-take-the-political-heat-out-of-climate-scepticism.html
Shills- The interesting line from your link:
“Where they disagree is over computer models supported by the IPCC, almost all of which project that the world’s natural feedback mechanisms will amplify the CO2 warming, probably to a dangerous degree. If the debate can focus on this feedback warming, we might be able to remove some of the political heat. But don’t hold your breath.”
With the tens of billions of dollars spent by governments on global warming– wouldn’t you think this question would have been the most important scientific endeavor? The failure to confront these basic scientific questions is perhaps the most damning of all for the AGW case. Models, however, can give you whatever answer funding desires.
Waldosorry- So why not return a courtesy and say who you are?
**** “I notice that waldo never has answered the “CO2 was there, CO2 is a GHG therefore CO2 caused warming” fallacy. Perhaps he can not ! / Show that CO2 actually caused warming and that it was measured not computed if you can. I am certain that you cannot or you would have done so by now.”
What a weird challenge – particularly given my repeated arguments on this blog. Am I wrong or is CO2 accepted as a greenhouse gas? Even Pat Moffitt acknowledges that in his post above. I suppose, netdr, that it may be proven that CO2 does not affect the atmosphere in the way we think it does; and I suppose that it may be proven that CO2 levels and the global warming trend are some sort of natural phenomenon – but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming.
All along, my droogy, I have said I am not a scientist and I do not know if AGW is real or not. All along I’ve said that, but the people here seem to have divided the world into alarmists and denialists. Also I have said all along that I think we amateurs should step out of the way and let the scientists do the scientific work. That is why I am here.
You do not know and cannot prove that AGW is a “fallacy” anymore than I can prove that CO2 warming is a reality. Neither of us can do it. That’s why we should leave it up to the scientists. You may wish to “think for yourself,” but it is fairly clear you do not have the analytical tools to do so in this context.
@ Pat Moffitt, this is the real me:
http://backseatcuddler.com/2007/09/03/brad-pitt-attacked-by-crazy-italian/sexy-brad-pitt/
Be traveling for a bit but will check in when I can. You’ll all be in my thoughts.
Cheers.
Waldo- You are under the impression that scientists are working to uncover the truth and I will admit that most try.But all need to pay the mortgage, get the kids teeth fixed hope to get some job security. And in the environmental sciences field there is only one funding source (despite the belief by some that oil companies were funding a giant disinformation campaign- I wish.) As commented earlier there are grants to look at the damage caused by ocean acidification is doing but there are no grants to question this assumption. Seem fair to you? In what direction do you think such a system will move?
Here is a test- write on one side of a piece of paper all the things medically in the last twenty years that have switched back and forth between good for you to bad for you or vice versa. As a recent example sun exposure- used to be bad for you now we find the lack of sun is causing vitamin D deficiencies that create more serious cancer risks than any skin cancer. Find just one environmental scare that has ever been admitted to be wrong by EPA or the NGOs. I woould give you an example but I don’t have one. Now answer how a field of science so complex and young could never have made a mistake and still be a science. Worse than we thought doesn’t count.
Most don’t understand that the abuses you hear people ranting about with respect to AGW are not new. EPA and the environmental movement have distorted science for 40 years. Prior to the internet EPA did this with impunity. Some of the anger you hear on the internet is decades of suppression finally given voice.
I’ll leave you with one of EPAs greatest slight of hand. EPA claims that 50% of all man made chemicals are carcinogenic. And they are correct if you use EPAs protocols. What EPA doesn’t tell you is that 50% of all natural compounds are also carcinogenic by these same tests. But EPA won’t provide funding for natural testing. (Or explain how they threw away century old knowledge that the dose makes the poison- its still true everywhere but at EPA) How differently would we look at carcinogens if we were aware that using EPA protocols wine, beer, comfrey, tomatos were among the most carcinogenic of all compounds How do we know this- Dr Ames at Berkely – the Ames of the Ames Mutagenicity test- the darling of the early EPA- until he started to test natural compounds only to be later slandered by EPA for his efforts (another 60 Minutes this one on Alar)Go to http://potency.berkeley.edu/herp.html. You see the problem is you are only a good scientist if you agree with what EPA wants you to agree with. So your simple solution to seek truth by following the lead of scientist isn’t so simple. Scientist don’t lead- they follow.
The last 2.7 million years constitutes the current ice age. It includes glacial and interglacial periods. There have been 7 glacial maxima during the last 800,000 years. We are currently in an interglacial of an ice age. The current interglacial began about 12,000 years ago and has been relatively long compared to the last 5 interglacials. All of human civilization has developed during the current interglacial.
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide always increase as the oceans warm. Sea level always rises when the oceans warm.
These are natural cycles that correlate well with the changes of the planet’s positition and motions relative to the sun. Furthermore, the sun is a variable star and our knowledge of its variability is quite limited.
Waldo
“I notice that waldo never has answered the “CO2 was there, CO2 is a GHG therefore CO2 caused warming” fallacy. Perhaps he can not ! / Show that CO2 actually caused warming and that it was measured not computed if you can. I am certain that you cannot or you would have done so by now.”
What a weird challenge – particularly given my repeated arguments on this blog. Am I wrong or is CO2 accepted as a greenhouse gas? Even Pat Moffitt acknowledges that in his post above. I suppose, netdr, that it may be proven that CO2 does not affect the atmosphere in the way we think it does; and I suppose that it may be proven that CO2 levels and the global warming trend are some sort of natural phenomenon – but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming.
*****************
Wald wrote”
“but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming. ”
That is where we part company. I think they have created a catastrophe where none exists or will exist.
Without a potential catastrophe their source of funds would dry up. Lysenkoism used the same methods and it worked for them. [The prevalent belief isn’t necessarily the truth.]
Thanks for admitting that the effect of CO2 on the recovery from the ice ages has never been measured and is at best a guess ! The public is lied to and told the effect is known when it isn’t.
Perhaps there is some study which measured this effect and it is hidden away and kept a secret from the rest of us. How likely is that ? If such a study existed it would be cited on page 1 of USA today and other liberal papers.
The fallacy is self evident.
CO2 was there CO2 is a GHG so CO2 caused warming. With circular reasoning like that scientists could go far.
Sugarplum fairies were there Sugarplum fairies are a GHG so Sugarplum fairies caused warming.
If the effect of CO2 could be measured the fallacy wouldn’t be a fallacy would it ?
The feedbacks are even more difficult to measure and greatly effect the total warming. The “C” in CAGW is where the real smoke and mirrors come into play.
We cannot measure the effect in 2010 with satellites circling the globe and hundred’s of scientists taking data and studying the problem ! Are we supposed to believe we can somehow measure it thousands of years ago ? Pure nonsense.
When I looked at the arguments about “An Inconvenient Truth” I noticed that all the climate alarmists parroted the same fallacious argument. I wondered if they were all mentally challenged or so in love with an ideology that they turned their brains off. I decided the latter was correct.
****”Thanks for admitting that the effect of CO2 on the recovery from the ice ages has never been measured and is at best a guess !”
Never said anything like that. Said I don’t know and neither do you.
**** “The fallacy is self evident.”
Only in the deniosphere which cherry-picks its information.
**** “Sugarplum fairies were there Sugarplum fairies are a GHG so Sugarplum fairies caused warming.”
Could not have come up with a better example of the denio-mentality if I had tried.
**** “We cannot measure the effect in 2010 with satellites circling the globe and hundred’s of scientists taking data and studying the problem !”
Or do you not like what the measurements say and therefore you are denying them. Hence the deniosphere. Your arguments are only convincing on blogspaces like this – that’s why you stay safely here. You preach to no one but the choir.
**** “An Inconvenient Truth”
Or are you really just mad at Al Gore because he represents the other end of the political spectrum?
And now, really must run.
What I react to is the dishonesty and obfuscation. [Which is another form of dishonesty.]
The public was shown the CO2 Vs Temperature graph in “An Inconvenient Truth” they were told that because CO2 and Temperature went up and down together that somehow proved that CO2 caused temperature rise. [It did fool some people.]
The fact that CO2 went up 800 years later was obfuscated. [Which is a form of lying] The public was then led to believe that since it was true in the past it must be true in the future. It hadn’t been proved that it existed in the past but that point was obfuscated.
The fact that any effect of CO2 was just a guess and not a measurement was obfuscated also.
They used this past connection which was never measured as proof of a future connection which is true if you say more temperature causes more CO2. The other direction, CO2 causes Temperature, has never been measured and is theoretical at best.
So tricking people into thinking we somehow can prove that CO2 caused warming in the past is untrue.
We cannot even measure it today with satellites going over every day, but somehow we CAN MEASURE it thousands of years ago ? Ridiculous.
If the climate alarmists had confessed that the warming of CO2 was a guess at best I would have respected that, but they had to obfuscate.
The dishonesty and obfuscation are so thick they are impossible to ignore.
That is one reason out of dozens that I am a skeptic.
Why lie and obfuscate a point that anyone with an IQ greater than his body temperature can see is a fib ?
From the story
“The reconstructed temperature record is not inconsistent with theories of high climate sensitivity to CO2, which, though the scientists did not actually study the problem, they felt the need to mention to get attention and funding.”
***************************************
The study was not about the link or lack of link between CO2 and warming. The problem wasn’t even studied.
The authors felt it necessary to make an obeisance to the Gods of Global Warming to assure their access to future funding. Kind of like a rain dance to assure good crops.
testing
test#3