Hi Jennifer,
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on “FullCAM”).
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause.
I am now skeptical and have recently bet $US6,000 that the warming trend will weaken
soon.
As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Read more by clicking here http://tinyurl.com/3dbbrb or here http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html
Cheers,
David Evans
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Could be a safe bet given carbon emissions will drop once oil and gas prices continue to forge their hyperinflationary trend, the global economy heads towards recession and then depression.
You’d be better investing that US$6000 in areas that will undoubtably benefit from rising oil and gas prices instead of making it a ego stroking exercise. A hedge against inflation.
If I can be penalised for the once-off carbon emission when I clear some forest, how come I cannot get “Cooling Credits” for the resulting increase in albedo and reduction in absorbed insolation from my modified landscape.
That anthropogenic change is on-going and cumulative so the longer my new paddock remains as a paddock the greater my contribution to off-setting global warming will be.
But I guess that little inconvenient truth is why the “Climate Muddlers” have left albedo changes out of their climate muddles, isn’t it?
Actually I don’t think it’s a safe bet at all – from either side. It’s really interestingly set up.
There are at least three things that could significantly affect this. PDO, Solar Cycles 24/25 and computer games. (Obviously there are many, many more, but…)
If the PDO changes to its cooler cycle as some are predicting – the bet’s probably safe from David’s POV. But will it occur? – I think yes (60% confidence), so a very small advantage to David.
If not, then the 10 year test point puts the 5 year average squarely over the hump of the next solar cycle. If cycle 24 is similar to 23 ( http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif ), then it’s likely that the 5 year averaged temps will show an increase – so write that money off. The 15 year bet is over the solar minimum – so probably safe and the 20 year bet, is an even money bet as even though it’s on the upside / middle of cycle 25, that cycle is predicted to be a very “cool” one. Over all even money bet I think.
We have recently had corrections to both the satellite / albedo measurements, and to SSTs. There are a lot of issues with the modelled global temps (see Roger Pielke Sr’s latest). I would not be surprised if some of the current global temp anomalies were reduced / adjusted as better understanding develops and (cynically) to align global temps to the CO2 exponential increase. This may set up an artificial temp increase somewhere in the betting cycles (because the most current temps will always be considered correct). Slight advantage to Brian.
cheers
Arnost
Aaron,
the CO2 emission rate has been increasing, beyond estimations. Even if we froze the level of CO2 at todays level, due to the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect, the earth will keep warming.
Thanks for an intelligent argument, David. I was intrigued by one of the comments on your original (Back Seat Driving) post which suggested that only daytime temperatures have risen, not night time. Is this true? If so, I think it is telling evidence of a solar effect.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Arctic-ice-melting-faster-than-expected/2007/05/02/1177788174493.html
“”Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Scambos said in a telephone interview.
“Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”
That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.
Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture from that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.
“The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur,” Scambos said.
The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.
“It appears we’re on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don’t have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean,” he said.
He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. “There aren’t many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability,” Scambos said.”
The scientists and models got it wrong, they underestimated how serious the problem is.
We are doomed, I tell ye … sure way to get your name in the newspaper. Do we know what qualifications Scambos has? Should we know who he is? Does he have a track record of correct climate predictions?
Welcome back Jennifer!
I have read of at least one other reputable scientist ( French as I recall – but otherwise completely reliable I assume ) who has “crossed over” in recent times.
Any info on conversions by sceptics anyone?
All comments from Graeme Bird deleted. His IP will be blocked tomorrow. In the meantime thread closed. Sorry.
———–
Update:
OK, I think I have set the blog so his comments will all go automaticly to ‘junk’ i.e. not be posted.
… thread reopened.
Welcome back Jennifer
I thought I would NEVER, EVER say this, and I am a bit embarrased to say it but: (CRINGE) “Censorship is OK (caveat: sometimes).
Also a big thankyou to Neil who attempted to keep this blog entertained in Jen’s absence.
cheers
Arnost
Motty
I don’t know the answer to this, but: Does a cleared paddock have a higher albedo than a forrest?
Arnost
Listen to Mr Edmonds is only half nutty. You gotta watch for unanticipated rebound effects before putting up silly bets.
BTW Davey the IPCC chappies said: lots of volcanic action (incl under sea), not overlooked.
Davey,
to quote the article.
“Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture from that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.”
Does that answer your question?
Hmmmmmmmmm…..I’d certainly question Aaron’s judgement, but I guess it’s good he’s putting his money where his mouth is.
The claims to increasing uncertainty since 2000 are extremely dubious. A read of the full 4AR scientific report shows how certainty has increased since TAR.
It seems he’s putting a lot of faith in cosmic rays, which is a theory that hasn’t held up to close inspection at all.
I’d rather be in Brain’s shoes than his.
Scam-boss is trying on the standard spivery again. At worst, the only time there will be any sort of absence of sea ice in the Arctic will be a few weeks in late summer. And then the wind will blow in from the 1.5km deep ice sheet that will still be covering Greenland for the next 11,000 years and the ice will form again and last all year except for a few weeks in late summer. (Yawn)
Yes, Arnost, it is generally accepted that grassland ecosystems have higher albedo than forest. Generally deserts and sandy beaches have about 25% albedo while dense forest has about 15% with the range of woodland densities being somewhere in between.
And this raises the interesting issue of urban heat islands. In theory, bitumen, concrete and roofing have a higher albedo than vegetation so the removal of vegetation for urban development should actually produce a climate cooling.
Unless, of course, there is too much emphasis being placed on daily maximum and minimum temperatures that do not tell the full story.
Urbanisation is likely to produce increase direct reflection in daytime that shows up as an increase in daily maxima but there is also likely to be a more rapid decline in temperatures at night (as in deserts) so that a mean of daily half hour records is much lower than a mean of just maximum and minimum records.
And given that albedo changes are not limited to urban landscapes, therein lies the source of our supposed Global Warming.
WB Jennifer & thanks for cleaning up this thread.
David Evans needs to explain some big points about this bet, like how will we know who wins and on what basis was it settled.
My cynical view has me thinking its only internet PR for his biz at best and jolly good humour at worst. Either way it’s hardly scientific.
In the absence of an accredited umpire it could be fun to appoint a blog style committee who would then appoint a panel to do the write up before and after the decision.
Yesterday when I spoke to an ALP office on an election policy matter I was asked if I’d seen their policy in detail. No was my answer because as an interested member of the public I can merely go by what is discussed in the media. Also professional commentators usually cull the waffle.
If I want to influence outcomes in any way I must hunt early with the hounds. A key word “flexibility” was used on the news last night in response to recent criticism of the ALP.
Hard nosed bets lock the contestants in for sure but have they stopped thinking?
Thanks Ian
What I was trying to get at was that (esp rain) forests create their own micro-climate – i.e. there’s a lot more retained moisture due to the shading and therefore more cloud formation over them (esp over large areas of forest) – which suggests that they would have a higher albedo if these were taken into account.
And yes – I think that a at least some of climate volatility is a consequence of clearing of forests for pastoral / agricultural use.
Interesting what you say WRT to urban areas having a higher albedo than vegetiation – can’t comment but does not “feel” right. Will have a look into it.
cheers
Arnost
As usual Wiki provides a short course – viz albedo in different terrains including urban areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Albedo_of_various_terrains
However you need to work out your relative areas with albedo – small changes may not amount to much. Conversely be careful what you wish for – your albedo change might change circulation patterns and cause either beneficial or detrimental effects to yourself and/or others (or do diddly squat).
A good example being Asian brown haze changing rainfall over north-west Western Australia. http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2l5.html
So your albedo change might get you a cheque in the mail or a bloody great bill – all depends.
It must be remembered that albedo is expressed as a percentage of insolation that is reflected. And it is usually expressed in relation to a surface of a disc that is perpendicular to the sun. This means the albedo of a surface at the equator may well be the same percentage as in the Arctic circle but the angle of incidence will be close to zero for most of the year.
This means, for example, that a square metre of sunlight will cover a square metre of flat land at the equator (at 12 noon) but a square metre of sunlight at the north pole, at noon on the summer solstice will cover about 2.7 square metres of flat surface. And, of course, later in the day, or year, it will cover 10 or more m3 and zero square metres in mid-winter.
The net result is that actual mean annual insolation/m2 in the Arctic is only about 20% of insolation at the equator. So discussions about the loss of albedo due to the loss of snow or ice cover, or variations between landscape types is best assessed in terms of actual watt hours/m2.
The other interesting part of the Scam-Boss scare story is the fact that at low angle of incidence the ocean is just as reflective as snow or ice.
As the wiki link above points out;
“Although the reflectivity of water is very low at high and medium angles of incident light it increases tremendously at small angles of incident light such as occur on the illuminated side of the earth near the terminator (early morning, late afternoon AND NEAR THE POLES(my emphasis))”.
The highest angle the sun ever gets at the poles is only 23.5 degrees at noon on summer solstice. The angles are all significantly smaller at every other time. So the change in albedo from ice to arctic ocean will not only be of limited duration but also of limited extent.
Note how the wikipedia piece on albedo fails to explain the insignificance of a change in winter albedos in a winter, snow covered landscape.
Ian
if it’s so cold there, and the sun has so little effect, then why is all the ice melting?
Strangely though I think the climate modellers may know about the seasons and tilt of the planet – call me intuitive – but somewhere in the 100,000s lines of code I think you’ll find they know that 🙂
Of interest is that the melting is occurring faster than the models predict.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/arctic_sea_ice.php
And on reasons for betting and disbelieving – the CO2 follows the temperature stuff – in a steady state glacial/interglacial situation – how could it be anything else. CO2 is not going to initiate the warming. Next the oceans will outgas CO2 as the planet warms. And at that point CO2 believers and modellers will imply a feedback warming kicks in. And modellers have sucecssfully modelled these transitions. Sceptics will say bah humbug. But the reason the glacial stops and starts is most likely to be Milankovitch orbital changes – i.e. solar.
Realclimate have bought into this stoush again recently
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/#more-430
But it’s not always CO2 lagging temperature – these papers are tough but worth a read
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf says climate sensitivity is affected by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years !!!! And at least 1.5C and a best fit of 2.8C which is close to the magic 3C for a doubling of CO2.
And here’s a sudden release of CO2 causing global havoc http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1266
The actual Science journal paper is at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587
These situations are more like the current situation than any of stadial/inter-stadial stuff.
And on cosmo-crapology I’d doubt they have anything.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/its-curtains-for-cosmic-rays.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
{Sceptics will still say bah humbug – sigh !}
Next !
P.S. Dave as for diurnal temperature range stuff – you tell us
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
It’s changed !
And why it’s important to read the 4AR before shooting from the hip !
“Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the
global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures
have high decadal variability. A slightly longer warm period,
almost as warm as the present, was also observed from the late
1920s to the early 1950s, but appears to have had a different
spatial distribution than the recent warming.”
Too honest ?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
‘Allo Cara Piranha Rosa mia (syntax?),
Glad to see you are following up on undersea volcanism. It seems to be affecting the Indian Ocean in WA’s favour this year – above average April showers. The warmth (SST) must have been t’other side last year, with floods in Mozambique. Look out for news reports of drought in East Africa next Christmas. It may, of course, be the Wagyl swimming around. Probably trying to avoid being sucked into the Perth desalination plant. Ask the Nyoongar people about that – I’m just a Wadjela. I think they used magic crystals to bring rain, plus a bit of judicious burning. Worked a treat for thousands of years.
Leave out the climate models….what’s going on out on the ice fields in the Arctic?
Read right now that the seal hunt must be stopped due to never witnessed scarcity of sea ice….” we have never witnessed anything like this,” say long time experienced sealers.
On another note. The High North Alliance’s spokesman Rune Frövik, states in a Swedish article that Greenpeace should leave their anti whaling campaign, that is all based on lies according to Rune F. It is only a money making business for them . Greenpeace should put all their resources on campaigning for reducing CO2 emissions, continues HNAs spokesman.
Anne – as always, great to hear from you.
I read that the seal hunt ice conditions
were some of the most severe in 25 to 30 years.
For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902426.html
Must be a bit different on the other side of the Atlantic to where you are.
cheers
Arnost
Sorry Ann – my bad, can’t spell (blush)
To alarmists and true believers:
The enhanced greenhouse effect is small, and if you want to argue about coamic ray flux, try it with Nir Shaviv – you might be the first to win the argument with him!
Sorry, that was cosmic ray flux – the ‘a’ is next to ‘s’ on the keyboard.
Hello Arnost,
Thanks for your input…
I have hardly any knowledge about the climate issue, but is it true what some people say, that when it’s cold in NewFoundland and Labrador , then it’s warm on the other side of the North Atlantic????
Re the ice in our part of the world and the seal hunt . It was blowing quite a lot and the ice , which was thin, was crushed against the land. That was one reason why it was impossible to hunt seals…
Well Paul I know you at the point of irrationality on being a solar-phile (self confessed): – if the CO2 GHG effect is “small” as you suggest – therefore there is some effect but obviously they have their physics calculations wrong – where have they got it wrong – which bit?
So this speeding up of Arctic Ice melt is whatever this months spiv wants it to be, is it?
For the record, that Washington Post article about the Labrador pack ice was dated 19th April 2007, only 60 days from the summer solstice. So exactly what data, over what time period was ScamBoss refering too?
Well, it wasn’t actual data at all as this link shows. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
It was a model that attempted to reconstruct the period between 1953 to the start of satellite coverage in 1978 from anecdotal references. And it was this modelled output that has been portrayed as hard data that shows a greater rate of melting than the IPCC models predicted. This is standard spin for NSIDC.
And of course, Brer Rabbett et al over at Stoat just lapped it all up as hard fact.
you dogmatic delusionists have enough self-faith try your own negative feedback loop: reverse climate forcing through sheer denialist argument and skullbuggery
too many dinosaurs spitting in the broth
the IPCC wonks haven’t realised the earth aint flat or it’s got a bit of a tilt up or solar aint static or the denialists hot air increases in direct positive relationship with GW. in fact, they’ve deliberately ignored all that hard stuff cos 450,000 lines of code about their mothers etc already had em stuffed. They lied about the outcomes of the models matching actual observed climate patterns too.
snore snore snore
How much can a polar bear?
back to hibernation
Come off it Ian – really nobody can win with you can they. Nothing here would ever be good enough.
So these dudes are working on this Artic stuff and so should report. The pollies say “How’s it going – anything happening. errrr.. ARGH – They wanna know how’s it going. Cripes. .. NUH. NOPE. It’s all going swimmingly. No alarmists here. ALL GOOD”.
They’re admitting uncertainties. They’ve indicated half of the ice loss from 1979 to 2006 was due to increased greenhouse gases, and the other half due to natural variations in the climate system. Are we going to get hung on pre-1979? Gee couldn’t we could use your ATLAS on prior argument ????
The 1979-2006 numbers are hard data. These guys are reporting that the obs are exceeding their best level of understanding. Gee I hope duh muddles cope with duh low sunshine in winter. Jeez.
All this stuff is about risk management. Interestingly the models can be wrong – but would if the “wrong” is TOO conservative?? Envelope compute that.
IPCC Delivery van arrives – hey guys where do we dump the latest truckload of supporting evidence.
Luke, the 1979-2006 obs may be hard data but it is only the models that are determining that greenhouse gases are responsible for 50% of the loss of ice. This is not the same as saying that the data itself indicated this. It is the models that are inferring the cause. The question we must ask is how reliable are the models? On present form i’d say not enough to make a believer out of me, nor enough to place me with the skeptics, an AGW agnostic perhaps!
As for the loss of ice in the arctic being cause for alarm or not we really do not have enough real data to make such an assertion. Until we understand the extent of the arctic ice over at least the past 100 years we are unable to assert that the retraction in ice coverage is cause for alarm. In climate terms 27 years is is a bare second or two and as such any inferences drawn from such a truncated data set must be put into context.
The current literature only reinforces that the extent of the arctic ice sheet pulsates according to the prevailing conditions. The research has not demonstrated that this is new, or is greater than at anytime in the past.
Indeed after the reading the report I would have to state that all it demonstrated was the uncertainty surrounding the model outputs.
7 points for rhetorical flourishes, Luke, 1.5 for substance. The issue is that modelled output of past events is being used as a surrogate factual bench mark for assessing future projections.
This modelling of past events is particularly problematic when there is so much cyclical and decadal variation in the ice sheet extent, as your earlier post has rightly pointed out.
It doesn’t matter if the extrapolation is heading forward into the future or back into the past, it is still an extrapolation. And in this case it is an extrapolation from another extrapolation.
And if you think I am going to sit back without hamering that sort of crap then you have clearly woken up on the wrong planet.
The NSIDC have delivered the desired political infotainment products on time, in budget. Just don’t call it science.
And don’t try to pass off the issue of albedo change as merely a winter thing of marginal relevance. The angle of incidence of insolation at the poles declines rapidly, even in mid summer, to angles where the reflectivity of water approaches that of ice. And until I see some evidence that this has been properly taken into account then I will assume that ScamBoss has either ignored it or has deliberately understated it’s relevance.
Ian
the ice did not melt for the benefit of the scientists. It just melted, they measured it.
Motty you demand evidence to refute your soapbox rants but you ignore any inconvenient evidence that’s put before you. You have fantastic powers of analysis so substantiate to us (fors AND againsts) how the models suffer from inertia and at what point they fail to account for albedo changes or whatever today’s slant on your morphing argument is. Also tell us how they discount observed changes.
You’ve windbagged based on short termist, flatland envelope quickies. Upgrade your singular envelope to handle systems effects. You isolate issues from their related outcomes. You do the same when you cry cut down trees to increase catchment runoff. Now put something of substance and bigger vision inside your envelop and post it. Here. Show us that you’re a bigger man than just a ginger tempered nit picker with a wooden chip on your shoulder.
Motty – get real – until you find some of the basics of what’s in a GCM it’s not worth debating. So zero out of 10 for a totally numb nuts response pulled out of your bum. I did not say it was of marginal relevance either. I’m simply saying you may find the modellers have some knowledge of basic climate. (Like – gee whiz !!)
The albedo bizo was just a brief wake up clip around the ears to freshen you up.
ANYWAY – how about some abuse on the above supplied references where CO2 does drive temperature in the paleo sense !!
Peter – we’ll just add that snippet to the growing pile of hundreds of diverse lines of global evidence that point only in one direction and with one scientifically defensible driver. I’m sure there’s no need for concern though. Probably just one of those things.
Nonsense Luke,
It is about scientific standards. The GCM’s are models and by their very nature are untestable and remain untested until sufficient time to determine their levels of accuracy and precision has passed.
We rely on transparency and a willingness to debate assumptions and inputs as just one measure of their value. When these basic things are not provided and those who question the assumptions that underpin the models are vilified (attend some of the climate meetings that I have and you will understand what I mean) then doubt will remain.
As you say Luke “some modelers have some knowledge of basic climate”. No one doubts that, its beyond the basic things that are still unknown, even the IPCC admits to that.
As a bye the bye,
There are a lot of May max temp records being broken today (esp in the NE NSW area) – will be interesting to see what comes out of the media tonight.
cheers
Arnost
Luke, no one is arguing that CO2 is not increasing and no one is arguing that global average temperatures have fluctuated. What many on this blog are questioning is the assumpton that the cause of the fluctuations in temperature are anthropogenic in nature.
The link between CO2 and temperature has not been conclusively proven one way or the other. We rely on modeled outcomes that we are unable to assign measures of accuracy or precision. Indeed what is often forgotten is that the GCM’s are scenario’s asked for by the IPCC. They are not predictions and they are not “projections”, a weasel word if ever I saw one.
The IPCC is not stupid they know that they are unable to call their modelled scenario’s predictions because they are not. The scenario’s themselves are still open to debate and until that debate is had openly and honestly many will remain unconvinced one way or the other as to the driver of the current episode of global temperature fluctuation.
Peter
The link has been proven, by scientists, using the scientific method.
SJT, no it has not. It has been modeled and hypothesised but not proven. There is more than a subtle difference. Indeed the data sets that have been used to derive the modeled results are themselves models. Take for instance the ice core data, very small sample size, subject to external influences from drill rigs to, handling and storage prior to analysis. The analysis method itself and the assumptons that the analysis relies upon.
I do not discount the broader results that ice core data analysis has resulted in but am cautious in unthinkingly accepting the accuracy and precision attributed to such data. We must always be mindful that these are proxy data and not real measurements, therefore they are subject to errors.
Perhaps this gives you a better understanding of where I am coming from. I would not call myself a skeptic or denier but more an AGW agnostic.
Come off it Peter – people are arguing about everything. Beck and CO2 if you remember. Warwick Hughes and the temperature record. etc etc.
As for the models – yep but these are the tools that integrates our cumulative knowledge. There’s enough validation to give one some confidence. And the results of the scenarios speak for themselves. And they can only ever be scenarios as we do not know humanity will respond to CO2 growth. Anywhere from nothing to a lot.
If you want to play scientist you have to make some call on attribution of the current warming. What have you got?
In any case it’s a risk management issue. Doing nothing is doing something.
Sorry Luke, you are mistaken in your belief that the models are validated. Against what pray tell? OK the inherent mathematics ican be validated but that is not validating the validity of the underpinning assumptions nor the validity of the proxy data. These are not trivial issues!
Agreed that the models are the tools for integration, however there is not general agreement on the assumptions that underpin th emodels nor on th evalidity of the scenario’s that form the basis of the models. Sure there is a form of scientific concensus on this issue but only insofar as the potential impacts of the modeled scenarios less so for the scenario’s themselves.
Actually I do not have to make some call on the attribution of the current temperature fluctuation, it is well within the historical record (if one accepts the modelled data).
As you say it is risk management, but when the science is bypassed by the politics, as is the case now, the poiliticians will allow themselves to be influenced by special interest groups iteh interests of their own political careers and of course their parties. In such an atmosphere rational decisionsa re rarely made.
An interesting aside and one that may surprise many people is that a resect US dust to dust automotive energy report has listed the Toyota Prius at 74th near the bottom of the list along with the Honda Civic Hybrid 73rd and the new Lexus RX400 at 83rd.
It seems that the total energy consumption of these “green” vehicle lifecycles is far worse than their on road fuel consumption and advertising would have us believe.
The greenest car surprisingly was the Jeep wrangler 4wd. This car is benefiting from the merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz and utilises the latest Euro emission meeting diesel engines as well as recyclable parts etc.
If you want to have a look at the report follow th e link below.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
the delusionists’ methodology for risk management: stick head in sand and hope it goes away, but if it doesn’t, the kids’ll hafta fix it or maybe God will
So Peter you’re content that the world could spontaneously just warm up an amount we have observed in the last 30 years – just “because”. It may have warmed or cooled in the past and for good reasons.
Peter – there is a vast literature on how GCMs validate i.e. modelling current climate and synoptic patterns, how sub-components validate out, sensitivity tests, comparison against proxies and observations. In fact that’s one of the main activities of modelling.
A brief selection:
http://www.isse.ucar.edu/rcw/presentations/zwiers.pdf
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/index.php
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf11/extended_abs/iacono_mj.pdf
I read right now that up in the Arctic , in Svalbard exactly, the Mecca of every climate researcher, there has only once been recorded warmer temperature in the period Januari-April,than this year. And this was last year , 2006.
According to an institute on climate research ( Norwegian), the ongoing trend is that the warming only will increase in the coming years…. and the areas first and most affected are polar regions. It seems like they started the recording of temperatures in 1900.
Luke,
I am fully aware of the literature on validation, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with all validation methods. Many are spurious to say the least.
Yes, I am content that the world could spontaneously warm up. That it can is not the issue. Climatic temperature fluctuates, the GCM told me so! No seriously, I am under no illusions as to what it means if temperatures either rise or fall beyond our and other organisms prefered temperature range. You will find no argument from me on the likely impacts in an ecological sense ( well probably quite a few)if temperature either falls or rises beyond the limits that flora and fauna can adapt to.
Regardles of the number of sensitivity analysis, comparisons against proxies, validation of sub components, sub sampling of data etc the models are only as good as the data that goes into them. Whilst ever questions remain about the acuracy and precisionof the available data we must maintain an open mind to the possibility that we have it wrong.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m a data junkie and much of the data that GCM’s rely on is proxy in nature and untested as to its acuracy and precision.
Indeed it is unable to be tested these things and therein lies the problem. What is not proxy data is all too often too temporally stunted and is of limited value on its own.
Ann Novek’s comment on the length of the time series data for Norway commenced in 1900. Australia’s commenced a little later than that. I am of the opinion that the truncated nature of these data sets is problematic in the sense that 100 years is a very short period of time when analysing climate data.
I recommend reading many of the accounts of both pastoralists and city folk from around at least 1850 through to 1910 or so. Their descriptions of the changes in their climate are insightful and the parallels between our current drought and the droughts in the late 1800’s and at Federation are instructive.
Yes I recognise that there is little supporting data of the quality that we would like but their experiences provide valuable insights into our past climates in a manner that current models are unable to do so.
The world can spontaneously warm up as much as we’ve seen he? Well you’re more easily satisfied than many.
IF you well aware of the literature on climate validation you’re probably a climate modeller then – hmmmm .. somehow I doubt it.
So if you take your stand on data then we know nothing. We know nothing about the past with inaccurate proxies nor the inaccurate estimates of temperature of the present. That’s helpful. No point in even having a discussion in that case. Somewhat nihilistic don’t you think?
Gee if you’re a data junkie you must have millions of data points in every single forestry trial. And hundreds of precision meterological dataloggers running for 30 years straight.
And after the experience of this blog you’re prepared to accept anecdotes preferentially over data – wow !
Nonsense Luke. That there is variation in the climate system is not disputed. The causes may be but not the actual event. Am I satisfied that we know the causes? No I am not. Do I subscribe to the current hypothesis that AGW is the cause? No I do not, only for lack of evidence. Given real evidence that is both robust and transparent then I will be happy to become an AGW proponent.
A computer model is not evidence. It provides insight into what may be occuring in our climate system but it is not evidence as is often overlooked by many AGW proponents. Are these insights important? Yes absolutely, but we should not loose sight of the faililngs of the models and the data that underpin them.
One of the benefits of AGW hysteria is the massive funding that has gone into climate research and the increase in knowledge of the operation of our climate systems. However we do not know it all, far from it and we delude ourselves if we assume that we do.
No I am not a climate modeler but that does not preclude me of being aware of the literature in areas such as climate modelling or other data validation methods. My job requires it, yes I do build models, though not climate.
You have misunderstood my stand on data. I do not say we wait until we have perfect data but that we understand the limitations of the data that we do use. These are fundamentally diferent philosophies. Again when using proxies to recreate past climates we must be aware of the limititation of such methods especially when using derived data to build third party models. Yes we can still gain important insights into past climate with such an approach but it may be somewhat tempered by our acceptance of the data limitations.
As for the amount of data that I have at my disposal, it is not inconsiderable nor does it amount to millions of data points ( and alas it likely never will).
Historical documents provide useful insights into what occurred prior to collecting the type of data that we prefer today. This is true not just for climate but for many other areas of science. Indeed the ability to write in such a descriptive manner has been lost today, with our technology making such a skill obsolete.
I did not say that I preferred such information over data, real or proxy. I stated that their descriptions were insightful and that there were some parallels that could be drawn with our current drought. That is very different to stating that such information is superior to real data, it can however complement it.
It seems I have to say it again; there is only one model that counts in the long run and its looking a bit frazzled now round the extremities with ice melting everywhere and seas rising. No math, science or IPCC needed folks.
Peter (and Ian) can easily go to the coast as I did recently and check a few high tides. There is absolutely no evidence that sea levels are falling and as an experienced coast watcher lets say there is plenty visible on the question of them creeping back to historic higher lines.
In case I missed someone, we simply need to watch out for signs of truncated frontal dunes anywhere. If this erosion is accelerating faster than the winds can restore them, more than a few coastal dwellers have big problems.
Anyone watching our ABC should recall a feature on the great arctic explorations and the associated search for the “North West Passage”. They were ice bound for years. From the Canberra Times we saw where mapping of that region has had some revisions as Greenland ice sheet and glacier outfall melts away.
Do I need to ask who’s done their own slimy ice & water experiments yet? Trigger points are easily established too.
Oh Gavin what nonsense you speak. I have been to the coast recently and did not make the same observation as you. We require long term measurement and validated data sets, not the odd glance out of the window. Did you take into account the moon phase or whether it was a spring tide you witnessed?
The arctic research vessel Vagabond, captained by French scientist Eric Brossier, sailed the North West Passage two years ago but has been ice bound for the past two winters ( he has overwintered 4 years in a row now). He is studying sea ice as a part of the EU’s Damocles climate change project. He is of the opinion that as a result of his research we can “understand the ice much better. We can’t predict, but maybe we can explain why its a certain way”.
Peter – you have yourself in an illogical bind – so the only evidence you will accept is a totally changed climate system with major shifts and trends statistically undisputed. Might be a tad late then don’t you think? Too late to act – times up ! Of course if nothing serious happens “I told you so”.
And of course being AGW agnostic is a cop-out – one needs to study fairly hard to get bootstrapped with the available science. And you’re not really agnostic as you never critique any of the alternative theories like cosmic rays, solar cycles. Selective agnosticism then?
Of course a computer model is a kind of evidence. It can provide a test of integrated knowledge against measured observations. Indeed modelling is standard methodology for testing whether one has serious understanding of a climate system. If you can’t model it you don’t really understand the drivers. Naturally if you can model you still may be wrong about the drivers but it is a formal test with an associated methodology. You’re only get so far with studying a climate system with conventional statistics.
How can one possibly explore a situation of the planet Earth with double CO2 without modelling – there is no other technology available. Do we have a replicate planet somewhere?
Verbal history may provide some insights – but it can also be biased and totally misleading. For example people tend to remember when their favourite forecaster gets a big event right and discount all the time he/she gets it wrong. A descriptive anecdote won’t clearly separate whether the evaporative flux is greater in the Federation drought cf the Millenium drought.
Working with the original base commander after his retirement from the high seas (down south) it was easy for me to build confidence in the way Australian climate research for that region has evolved.
On CO2 alarms:
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
Abrupt change:
http://www-new.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2457
What I can’t understand is what any jonnycomelatleys gain in knocking it
Peter: same as that naval commander with decades of experience, grounding observations and measurements for control systems or R&D becomes second nature with any discipline.
When alone you have the sun the moon and the stars, but in broad daylight my father taught me to use the horizon as a level line and he wasn’t at sea. Think about it for a moment and tell me where your notion of “perfection” starts when eying up a bit of timber for a house.
This is our problem Peter with all arguments when “discipline” becomes the obsession.
Human nature, in fact all nature is fluid not rigid even death is not final.
Reason has me thinking a graded fire trail over the Orroral ridges in the Namagi becomes an aberration. Earlier cultures using that spot had no dozers or helitanks. The machines of our culture add greatly to the dryness there though.
The simple facts of the matter is that in each of the past 3 interglacials, the mean temperature peaked some 3 degrees C higher than the current high. So the current so-called warming is still ENTIRELY within the normal range. It is not a warming at all, it is a variation in temperature.
The NSIDC has past form in massaging past incomplete data to support their collective views and have also had not the slightest hesitation in drawing conclusions based solely on the post 1979 satellite scans.
The classic was their earlier attempts at reconstructing the ice coverage in a way that smoothed over the cool period during the 1960’s and early 70’s. They actually had the gall to claim that the substantial reductions in mean northern temperatures during this time did not produce changes in ice extent but failed to offer any explanation why this could be so.
Luke and SJT are betraying the classic cognitive shortfalls of the over zealous. They seriously cannot distinguish between an actual data record of past fact and a modelled guess at a past outcome.
This is the core of most sceptics understanding of the issue. The climate cretins have no concept of data integrity and no understanding of why it might be important in determining the economic and policy settings for the entire planet.
Ian being done like a dinner and done slowly resorts to the usual pattern of rhetorical blather.
Data integrity my bum – brought to you by a supporter of the Beck CO2 story ROTFL – and mate you’re on about understanding and integrity. You wouldn’t know it it if you fell over it. LMAO.
So blather boy is now expecting a press article to reveal all. But (a) we can ignore the pre-1970s measurements if you like and (b) what would your estimate be of that period anyway on the graph – would it change the story much?
And so you’ve read the actual paper and know what “.. .. newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements that are considered more reliable than the earlier records”. I mean really – what a skanky critique from Ian – are you some sort of antediluvian, precopernican obscurantist.
Furthermore – Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between 1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1 m in 1958–1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner in some regions during the 1990s. Rothrock, D. A., Y. Yu, and G. A. Maykut (1999), Thinning of the Arctic sea-ice cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(23), 3469–3472.
And as usual with dimwit denialists we’re now into cycles – so all interglacials are now indentical and will always be identical eh? Furthermore the ice core temperature record is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed show the pattern of the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller.
And so the world is just “warming up” for no reason. Get a grip. Desperate bleating stuff as the evidence keeps piling up.
Get these into ya for a good dose of warming up. Will warm the cockles as the sun traverses that northern sky lower (gee hope the modellers know that one) and winter chills lay some more wispy ganja mist and obscuring fog in Nimbin sleepy hollows.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1266
The actual Science journal paper is at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
Ian
a variation in temperature up is commonly called warming, down is cooled cooling.
Another shonky bit of spin, Luke. You forget that the warming of the PETM, 55m years bp, was not just associated with 1500Gt of CO2. It also included MILLIONS OF CUBIC KILOMETERS of molten lava covering the ocean floor which, even the worst overzealous scrubber must agree, would have played the major part in the recorded warming.
Each cubic km is 2 or 3 Gigatonnes in mass so even one million of those would involve incredibly large amounts of heat exchange. And this would be by direct exchange rather than the indirect climate forcing action of the CO2.
Just get your little departmental brain around how many tonnes of CO2 it would take to match the direct heat exchange of a single cubic metre of molten lava. The Hawaiian lava is about 1200C so the temperature of a massive flow would be even higher.
At this stage even the IPCC is only willing to claim that a doubling of CO2 to 600ppm will add 2C in temperature. 300ppm is 1500Gt so this means, roughly, that each Gt will deliver 0.00133 of a degree C in warming. Our currently claimed anthropogenic increase is 7Gt which makes an annual mean temperature increase of 0.0093 C each year.
Compare this with a direct heat transfer from one Gt of molten lava at 1200C and it is clear that the PETM was entirely driven by direct heat exchange from a major rupturing of the earth’s molten core.
Any claim that this was a greenhouse driven event merely confirms the desperation that the climate cretins are now under to invent any vaguely plausible evidence to support their case.
And it also confirms how gullible you are, Luke, for any sort of reinforcing of your sad little prejudices.
Think about it, bozo. I’m off to the farm to disembowel a tree.
Luke, No illogical bind. I can remain a climate agnostic and expect that some form of risk analysis would occur. There is no issue with a risk analysis approach, everday we make judgements based upon our perceived levels of risk. In this matter you perceive a greater level of risk than I do, as befits our individual acceptance of the current state of climate science. The storey et al paper is insightful and provides a plausable explanation of past events where one did not exist.
Gavin provided two links above. Nothing new there at all. However what is worrying is that the sample size that is providing the ice core proxy data is so incredibly small. There are many things that can contaminate an ice sample including the drilling process itself and then the sawing up of the core prior to analysis. Dating the core is still problematic as is corellating the result with the time period, especially so as you go further back in time.
I do not deny the insight that this method provides nor the increase in our understanding of past climate, and I never have. The concern lies with the use of many disperate data sets as model inputs. The error associated with this has the potential to be greater then the result. Indeed the noise within the Vostok ice cores is at times greater than the variation in the temperature record.
As for cosmic rays, solar cycles, etc, yes they have their problems also, lack of data being the main one. However I am not about to dismiss them as readily as some have, as our current knowledge (of the climate system) demonstrates that we do not know all that there is to know about their interaction with the climate system. Perhaps over time we may understand their relationships far better as money is invested into research in these and other areas.
As for the world warming up for no reason, now you are being mischievious, of course there is a reason, and CO2 plays a part in it, but the science is yet to explain it.
Ian – are you on drugs – so a bout hot lava from volcanism is going to keep going us warm for thousands of years. And the eruptions were global as to affect every part of the world. The whole planetary surface erupted did it?
Jesus Ian do some basic physics. I really can’t believe what a nongy goose you are. What a stupid comparison even – the CO2 changes the solar energy balance continuously. Melt some sinker lead and pour in on the ground – see if it’s still hot next day ! You really don’t even have the basics to do a discussion with do you. Have some more Nimbin Gold.
Peter
the ice core data is interesting for looking back over history, it is only a small part of the case on AGW. The actual measurements and science we have on existing change is more than enough to make a case for concern.
SJT,
I disagree! Actual measurements must be placed in the context of what changes have occured in past climate. Viewed on their own recent measurements are context less. So if an increase or decrease in temperature has occurred in our directly measured data set over recent time how then do we understand what it means without a reference to past climate?
But Peter you don’t trust the proxies so you have no way of telling. We know nuttin’.
Sorry Luke but we do know much, but have much to learn.
I have never said that the use of proxies in itself is a bad thing. We gain many useful insights into how climate operates through them. BUT they have ther limitations and at present their limitations are being overlooked and they are treated as fact, which clearly they are not.
So which way do you want it then Peter – as proxies now seem to be good enough for evidence sometimes and not others??
And Peter – just for some clarification – I’m not what you would call a big greenie. What to do about AGW is a very difficult issue. I’m OK with some nuclear options – but many would not be. I’m simply the debating in these threads the quality of the science to make a call that warming is happening and our best science says it’s anthropogenic in origin.
Regardless of whether one is pro or anti-AGW, society (Blame those evil greenies and Al Gore) is in a position where we need to make a risk management call on the issue. Risk management implies making a decision with imperfect information. Doing nothing is a decision and may have consequences. Doing something may be economically hazardous, startlingly beneficial or somewhere in between.
Luke,
No disagreement with the requirement for risk management. You are correct when you say that risk management requires making a decision with imperfect information. My concern is that the imperfect nature of the information that we have and the broader communities poor understanding of the information will/is leading to political “solutions” that are worse then the symptoms.
Unfortunatley, the poor understanding of the data that feeds the models and the sometimes outrageous assumptions that underpin some models are poorly understood by the broader community and journalists and politicians in particular. Green poitics is forcing the agenda down a particular pathway that the “evidence”, not models, does not support.
Well Peter the issue if pretty basic isn’t it – how much to limit atmospheric CO2 growth ?
So whatever agenda could the greens have than that ?
And of course errors can go both ways – which what the Artic ice melting more quickly than the modelled understanding hints at.
Luke, once again we are set up in a circular argument. Neither of us will conceed our position and I guess that until we are proven incorrect neither of us will.
The greens are driving the political agenda, perhaps not so much in this country but certainly across Europe (where they are a much more powerful force) and now into the USA. As is usual Australia follows the rest of the world. However it is the green alarmists that are arguing that death and destruction are imminent.
The Arctic ice melt may be melting more quickly than the models understand, but that is not to say it is not a normal event, given the meagre length of the records we have. I would suggest that this is another indication that the models are far from accurate and that our understanding of global systems is still in its infancy. How bloody arrogantly anthropogenic it is to assume otherwise.
Yes Peter the models are wrong but not on the side you guys think. The point that they are not validating out is of course a circular argument borrowing your phrasing (sorry) – hopefully they will soon be able to deduce where they are not right.
Oh look the greens may be driving the agenda in Europe but not in Australia and the USA – both governments have to be dragged to the table.
And India, China and Russia don’t get pushed around too easily – do they?
Unfortunately it does come down to risk management if you are in government. If one was in the AGO or CSIRO you’d be working hard to get a precise message into government. So if you were the policy officer on watch – what are you going to recommend.
Luke, you seem to have lumped me in with who knows who, “Yes Peter the models are wrong but not on the side you guys think.”.
I am not on anyones side, indeed I act independently and recently have commenced full time postgraduate research.
Interestingly your comment on model error is perplexing. I suspect that I read much the same material that you do, yet I ( and others) have reached an altogether different conclusion about the inherent error contained within the models and what that means for the future (however this could change as new research is concluded).
That is the beauty about this area (climate science) of research, it so far from being cut and dried and we can still arrive at different conclusions venues of climate science.
As I stated before it is politics that is driving the climate debate and much of it is misinformed of using the dissue to pursue other agenda’s.
Luke: Peter’s aim at AGW is a bit like the early “Sidewinder” heat seeking missile complete with “proportional response”. Now if our Avon Sabre was to do a back flip it could cop its own missile straight up the exhaust. Sorry Peter I can’t resist adding circular motion to “rear aspect” (technical jargon). Locking of selected of target was somewhat arbitrary then.
Blame Uncle at Fisherman’s Bend (CAC built Sabre) for this intro when the above was top secret. It sure hardened my interest in all control features like negative feedback.
Peter: I could not help but notice your points about data either. Let’s use a hot tip and review some local sources.
BRS update May 07
http://www.daffa.gov.au/brs/about/statement/html
ABS update May 07
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/integrative/data/progress.html
Tracking developments will be easy with the added emphasis on environment issues.
Let’s have some faith in revised methods too. We have come a long way from single term remote control.
Peter – my apology. Let me rephrase as “the contrary argument”. Hope Gavin doesn’t test fire an Exocet up our jacksies.
Gavin,
Your links to BRS and ABS updates add nothing new, especially in a data sense. Indeed they just highlight the lack of data rather than support any other position. Especially the SOE. A past job was to provide technical support and data for the SOE so I am fully aware of its limitations. As for the ABS environmental reporting, wildly innacurate, due, you guessed it, to a lack of adequate data.
Luke,
No worries, just don’t mention the war!
As usual, Luke resorts to insult when cornered on the issue of the PETM. And his little anecdote about melted sinkers betrays the pathetic scale of his intellect.
This 55 million year old event is the only instance where the climate clowns can claim as an example of CO2 induced global warming. It is also conveniently distant to discourage closer scrutiny of their claims.
But lets take a close look at the numbers here because this study has ignored some very basic physics in attributing 6 degrees of warming to CO2.
The combined volumes of the major oceans are;
The Pacific Ocean 166 million km2 x 4.287km average depth = 713 million km3.
The Atlantic Ocean 82 million km2 x 3.933km average depth = 323 million km3.
Indian Ocean 74 million km2 x 3.970km average depth = 292.5 million km3.
Arctic Ocean 14.5 million km2 x 1.28km average depth = 18.5 million km3.
For a total, excluding the remaining much smaller oceans, of 1,347 million km3.
The research on PETM refers to “millions” of cubic kilometres of lava flows during this period. The temperature of these lava flows are likely to be similar to the lava currently flowing from the Hawaiian volcanoes, that is, about 1200 degrees C. This means that, at assumed equal density of lava and water, that 1km3 of lava would heat up 200km3 of water by 6 degrees C, or 1350km3 by 1 C.
And this means that it would only take 6.73 million km3 of lava to raise the temperature of all the world’s oceans by 6 C.
But lava is clearly heavier than water. The Basalt that it subsequently forms is in the order of 3kg/ litre of volume or three times that of water.
But even if we used a more conservative mass of only 2kg/litre it would only require 3.36 million km3 of lava to heat the entire worlds oceans by 6 degrees.
The PETM studies clearly indicate that lava flows were in the order of several million km3 so the role of lava in that particular global warming is obvious to all but those who have a political and emotional need to pretend that it wasn’t there.
And it must be remembered that oceans have an albedo of only 3.5% so most of that heat will be retained, especially if there is additional CO2 to hold it in. But it was not the CO2 that did the warming, it merely extended the length of the warm period by keeping the released heat from the Earth’s core within the biosphere.
There is no internal generation of heat in evidence today that would even faintly resemble the circumstances of the PETM. And it logically follows that the PETM is of minimal relevance to contemporary climate variation.
Biffo boy revs up the envelope once more
(1) try the harder paper too – don’t wuss out
but anyway
(2) you’re assuming even spread of lava – wrong call
(3) Oceans turn over – 800 years max ? – do the maths on the event time, warm water stratification, temperature and turnover – plenty of time for ocean cooling and heat dissipation
(4) If you’re so good on the envelope – you should also be able to work out the radiative forcing impact of the CO2 – or are you saying it’s zero.
No where even near scary yet Ian. Sigh !
If you’re confident pen a letter to the Editors of Science and take them on. But that’s only if you’re really sure – that is.
I am assuming no such thing, Phlukey.
The lava flows were primarily in the north atlantic as the maps on the above links indicate.
The supposed time frame of the claimed CO2 release from warmed ocean bed sediments was 10,000 years. So it is entirely reasonable, and logical, given the scale, to assume that the lava flows did not take place in a single event but, rather, over a few millenia.
Indeed, given the temperatures involved, the pace of ocean circulation would increase considerably and this would speed up the rate of mixing and disrupt any surface stratification. In this case the heating element was at the bottom of the vessel and the higher the temperature of the element, faster the rising water column and the faster the inflow of cold bottom water to replace it. It would be a proper convection cycle.
And that would be more than sufficient to thoroughly mix the warm water throughout the worlds oceans. It would certainly be more than enough to raise the Atlantic temperature considerably.
And it would certainly be far more robust, credible and predictable than the bulls**t dished up in relation to the claimed reversed thermohaline circulation, due to minor changes in the density of the Gulf Stream due to melt water, under the mini-ice age scarenario of the climate cranks.
So do you seriously expect us to believe that a massive outflow of lava over the ocean floor would have no heating effect on the ocean temperatures above it but would simply warm up the CO2 laden sediment layers beneath it and release their CO2? So heat generally goes down, not up?
And do you seriously expect us to believe that this release of CO2 would be possible AFTER those same sediment layers have been covered by a layer of basalt that is up to a kilometre thick? Lets see you replicate that one in the laboratory.
So please explain to us, Luke, exactly how this CO2 laden sea bed sediment was warmed up in a way that did not involve major oceanic heat circulation and did not involve the lava actually covering the same sediment.
Are you seriously suggesting the heat was tranferred laterally along the sea bed from the lava deposit to the sediments? Without any transfer via sea water?
Once again we have clear evidence of some serious analytical shortcommings in the collective mind of “spivanthropus climatensis”.
Ian – I’m beginning to think you’re “Climatesaurus nincompoopis”.
Try looking at the evidence 10,000 years of volcanism. But – Temperature and CO2 stay high for 200,000 years. Ocean acidifies. Wonder why it the pH dropped – hmmm could it be CO2?
Massive die off of marine biota.
There’s plenty of edge effect as the lava progresses and spreads – the CO2 doesn’t have to come from below a “blanket”.
And the thermohaline theory exists due to paleo records which suggest a stalled or slowed conveyor. Nobody except you is talking about a reversal.
Gosh, so now it is “edge effects” that produced a sequence of little burps instead of the old “big burp” theory? Keep trying, Luke, there must be some sort of gullible plodder out there that will take you seriously.
And you really didn’t think much about your 10,000 year release and 200,000 year warming line, did you?
If a planet is in equilibrium with a relatively stable mean temperature and a standard set of albedo and absorption relationships, and is then impacted by an internal heat source, a lava flow of such magnitude that it can warm all the world’s oceans by 6 degrees, then why wouldn’t the resulting warming last for another 190,000 years?
If 96.5% of solar heat is normally retained by oceans in warm surface layers then the heat in circulating deeper layers will retain even more heat. The heat can only be lost by the surface layers so the remaining 99% of total ocean volume will undergo no heat loss until it gets back to the surface in 800 years time. At which time it may lose 3%.
And as with every other warming we have seen, CO2 increases in response to increased biotic activity in the warmer climate. It lags, as CO2 has been consistently observed to lag temperature increases in the ice core data sets.
And massive die off of marine biota due to the unprecedented volume of hot water in places where it is not normally found. Is that such a complex concept to grasp?
But when are you going to come to terms with the actual scale of the volcanic episode? The entire volume of the Greenland ice sheet is only 1.5 million km3 and it’s temperature is only about 30 degrees below the planetary norm. And all agree that the loss of this ice would produce major climate change.
Yet, you are seriously trying to tell us that three times that volume, that was 1200 degrees above the planetary norm, had no direct impact on climate?
The official line, that this scale is only to be considered in relation to volcanic CO2 emissions but not the far more relevant issue of direct heat transfer, is untennable.
You can’t weasel out of this one, Luke. The evidence is clear that there was a massive introduction of heat into the biosphere from internal sources. The volumes involved are entirely consistent with recorded temperature changes.
As the link at http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1266 said,
“I think the dating is quite good,” commented Paul Renne of the Berkeley Geochronology Centre in California, in a related news article also in today’s Science. It “certainly provides strong linkage between the PETM and the [volcanic activity].”
That is, the data merely confirms the link between the warming and the volcanic activity but it is unable to establish that the CO2 preceded the warming. That is the speculative part of the reporting. And it ignores the most significant facts, which are;
1 millions of cubic kilometres of lava flowed onto the sea bed, and
2 that lava had a temperature in the order of 1200 degrees C, and
3 that introduced heat was sufficient to raise the temperature of all the world’s water by 6 degrees C, and
4 the cloud producing characteristics of warm water would ensure an increased capacity to allow solar heat in while restricting heat loss, and
5 the resulting warmer, wetter climate would increase biotic activity and boost CO2 levels.
Now if you can’t manage to deal with the issue of scale, Luke, then best you see if you can find someone who can.
“as with every other warming we have seen, CO2 increases in response to increased biotic activity in the warmer climate. It lags, as CO2 has been consistently observed to lag temperature increases in the ice core data sets.”
– NOPE – not so – list ALL the warmings !!!
Loss of Greenland ice sheet – nope – all we agree on is that “climate change” may eventually cause the loss of the ioe sheet. Not the other way around. The loss of the ice sheet would cause sea level rise.
You have totally glossed over the formal aspect of heat loss. No calculation on time scale. The ocean surface can lose a couple of degrees temperature in an El Nino event in one year.
You have impuned initially that large scale CO2 production couldn’t have occurred but ignored that the ocean acidified, went anoxic, and major loss of marine life occurred globally.
Like with the thermohaline you’re very good at psuedo calculations and bluster but crap at fitting observations to the model.
Some futher investigations make your hypothesis unlikely.
(i) the injection of greenhouse gases/warming took < 20 ky but the intense volcanism/magmatism went on for maybe 1 million years, and continued thereafter in the form of the Iceland hotspot track. The initial magmatism appears to have triggered the greenhouse gas release by cooking organic rich sediments along the line of continental breakup. (ii) Much of the magmatism was continental, this was the birth of the NE Atlantic.
So magmatism on land? Ongoing volcanism/magmatism !! – but a warming of 200,000 years.
Ian – the world doesn’t conform to your envelope. That’s the sad lesson you have never learned.
BTW you’ve still missed the main paper – gorging on the entree and omitting the main course. Paleo evidence indicates climate sensitivity = 2.8C for 2X CO2. Envelope that !
So you are still skipping around issues of scale, with vague references to warmed sediments but no substantiation on how this might take place.
El Nino surface hot spots may appear to lose heat but this is primarily due to increased upwelling of deep ocean cold water. This is nowhere near the situation likely after a massive seabed volcanic outflow, and you know it.
You just can’t get your head around the fact that at constant solar inputs and a constant planetary albedo of about 30% the Earth’s mean temperature remains stable unless influenced by an internal heat source.
Now just take a deep breath and lets try to consider one extra variable, shall we? There are solar inputs, albedo and absorption, but there has also been, from time to time, major variations in internal heat sources, as this paper confirms. It is only one extra variable, your brain will not implode after taking this on board.
For your case to stand there would have to be a limit on the oceans capacity to absorb heat and oceanic albedo would have to increase dramatically to allow the excess internal heat to escape. Where is the evidence for this?
BTW, I have no access to the full report but readers of this blog would welcome the opportunity to take a closer look. Can you or anyone else post the full copy?
Luke said, “(ii) Much of the magmatism was continental, this was the birth of the NE Atlantic”. And implies that this was on land and therefore did not involve the sea bed at all.
But the map at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/figsonly/316/5824/587 makes it painfully clear that the overwhelming majority of the flow was under the ocean and, therefore, likely to impact on ocean temperatures.
Nice try at diversion, Luke, but spare us the disinformation.
Withering defence by Ian…
he’s tiring .,..
“the injection of greenhouse gases/warming took < 20 ky but the intense volcanism/magmatism went on for maybe 1 million years, and continued thereafter in the form of the Iceland hotspot track”
And yes I agree that within the broad variations of climate (allowing e.g. El Nino and decadal type variations) that the Earth’s climate stays the broadly the same without a change in solar (from the sun itself or orbital change), greenhouse gas forcing, aerosol forcing changes, major albedo change, continental drift rearrangement of land and sea, or internal heat.
I’m surprised you’re now integrating multiple factors yourself ! WOW !
Now why don’t you get the envelope out and calculate the radiative forcing for the greenhouse component. Why do you keep avoiding it?
Perhaps you’d like to surrender and accept this: http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf says climate sensitivity is affected by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years !!!! And at least 1.5C and a best fit of 2.8C which is close to the magic 3C for a doubling of CO2.
Will forward the full paper soon via Jen.
Thanks for the paper, Luke. And as I expected, the CO2 part is purely speculation that has been interpreted as a proven fact by the purple science press.
The actual volumes of lava involved, 5 to 10 million km3 make it even more likely that the direct heat transfer was primarily responsible for the temperature increase. And as this is a localised event, we don’t know what other lava flows also took place in the same period in other parts of the world.
There is nothing in this paper that can indicate the actual areas of claimed CO2 laden sediments that have been warmed or how this took place. It has the powerful stench of some sort of climate muddlers who picked the number out first and then built the scarenario around it.
So we’ll just follow through on this line of inquiry for a bit longer before we bother with any CO2 sensitivity distractions, if you don’t mind.
The claim is made explicitly by the authors more than climate modellers. I am following up directly with the author though.
Ian – phone-a-friend – emailing the lead author actually – resulted in this clarification which puts greenhouse back fairly and squarely as the issue:
“The volcanic province (thousands of flows and intrusive equivalents) was not emplaced instantaneously (which is what your calculations assume), but over 6 million years (61-55 Ma). Moreover, much of it was was continental (emplaced above sea level over East Greenland and the Faeroes). There was a surge in activity at around 56 Ma, due to the final rupturing of the continent – allowing the mantle to rise to a shallow level, and resulting in a large amount of melting due to decompression. It was this surge in magmatism that appears to have triggered the PETM – however, NOT by heating the oceans, or by directly contributing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Most likely explanation is that sills (intrusive lavas) cooked organic rich sediments in basins, releasing thermally produced methane. This was proposed by Svensen et al in Nature 2004 – they seismically imaged hundreds of vent (gas release) structures coming from sills emplaced in the Vøring Basin off the west coat of Norway. Later work has shown similar structure in other sedimentary basins that 55 million years ago would have been proximal to the developing rift between Greenland and Europe.
It would be rather like placing a giant hotplate beneath the North Sea today
— the sills were the hotplates 55 million years ago.
We know from the ocean sedimentary record that the release of greenhouse gases (and the increase in ocean temperature) occurred in less than 20,000 years. The start of the breakup-related surge in magmatism appears to closely correspond in time with the release of greenhouse gases — indicating a trigger mechanism for the PETM and supporting the Svenensen et al idea. It took 100,00 to 200,000 years for ocean temperatures to drop down to the value preceeding the event. So 20 ky to warm , 100-200 ky to recover.”
Does he have a map showing main lava fields, vents, sills etc with continents and oceans as at 55my? That is the test.
My analysis does not assume all that lava flow took place at a single point in time. Nor does it assume that all the heat exchange took place at a single point in time.
And the fundamental inconsistency of this PETM theory remains. That is, the near surface magma and volcanic sills etc were supposed to be capable of “cooking” the sediments but were not capable of warming the sea water above. A very long bow indeed.
The question is not one of either/or but, rather, how much warming was contributed by each. The jury is still out.
Well he’s just a paleo expert – he probably doesn’t know anything. All depends how close the sedimenst are to the surface and the gases escaped from vents. Sheeesh !!!!
I skimmed thru this somewhat rapidly, not extremely carefully, but I did NOT see any discussion that the Martian co2 icecaps are melting and that warming effects are seeming to appear on Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. The first Mars melting article I saw was around 20 years ago with pictures comparing 1950 to then. It was very similar to the widely publicized pictures of glaciers.