SNAP: 'Data says global cooling, physical model says it has to be warming'

A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?

From the University of Wisconsin-Madison

MADISON, Wis. — When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.

“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”

Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, Liu and colleagues from Rutgers University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, the University of Hawaii, the University of Reading, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Albany describe a consistent global warming trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling before human influence.

The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

“The question is, ‘Who is right?'” says Liu. “Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year’s study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms.”

Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.

Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called “hockey stick” on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.

In that study, the authors looked at data collected by other scientists from ice core samples, phytoplankton sediments and more at 73 sites around the world. The data they gathered sometimes conflicted, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Because interpretation of these proxies is complicated, Liu and colleagues believe they may not adequately address the bigger picture. For instance, biological samples taken from a core deposited in the summer may be different from samples at the exact same site had they been taken from a winter sediment. It’s a limitation the authors of last year’s study recognize.

“In the Northern Atlantic, there is cooling and warming data the (climate change) community hasn’t been able to figure out,” says Liu.

With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don’t believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting ice sheet, nor do the physical models in the study show that it’s possible.

“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.

Caveats in the latest study include a lack of influence from volcanic activity in the models, which could lead to cooling — though the authors point out there is no evidence to suggest significant volcanic activity during the Holocene — and no dust or vegetation contributions, which could also cause cooling.

Liu says climate scientists plan to meet this fall to discuss the conundrum.

“Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing,” he says. “I think it is a puzzle.”

###

The study was supported by grants from the (U.S.) National Science Foundation, the Chinese National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

155 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kenw
August 11, 2014 3:24 pm

““The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.
hmmmm…..

frozenohio
August 11, 2014 3:25 pm

Stop the insanity!

August 11, 2014 3:28 pm

So what happened to all that “settled science” I keep hearing about?

Daniel G.
August 11, 2014 3:29 pm

The climate modellers (and pretty much everyone else) are uncertain of the causes of very low-frequency climate effects.

David S.
August 11, 2014 3:30 pm

Maybe they could conduct a poll to determine the consensus?

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 11, 2014 3:30 pm

Ooopsie!
Oh, by the way, Antarctic sea ice has been greater than +2x standard deviation above its established NSIDC daily averages for a couple of years now …
Been steadily increasing ever since 1996.

LT
August 11, 2014 3:31 pm

When did the parameter aka as climate sensitivity become a fundamental law of physics

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 11, 2014 3:32 pm

Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called “hockey stick” on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.

So these guys still believe in Mann-made hockey sticks, eh?

cnxtim
August 11, 2014 3:33 pm

97% – nn% = ?

Latitude
August 11, 2014 3:39 pm

so they eliminated everything “known”.. it had to be CO2
…now we have unprecedented never before global cooling

August 11, 2014 3:41 pm

Yea, so the volcanos in 1253, 1783, and 1816 meant nothing to climate….

Allen63
August 11, 2014 3:43 pm

One thinks as ice melts, it cools the surroundings. The heat goes into making water out of ice (“Heat of Fusion”).
So, the idea that “glacier retreat” signals increasing temperature seems wrong. We may have reached a “maximum” that caused ice to melt — and are being pulled down from that maximum by the melting ice. Of course, I may be missing something.

August 11, 2014 3:45 pm

The doi link is broken for the paper, but the supplemental info is online:
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/08/08/1407229111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201407229SI.pdf
Says they used Marcott’s data, previously ripped to shreds by McIntyre & others

Curious George
August 11, 2014 3:48 pm

“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.
Grrrh!

Claude Harvey
August 11, 2014 3:50 pm

“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.”
What? This is better than the “freezing water causes ice” government report we were recently treated in ref. to the Great Lakes.

Joe
August 11, 2014 3:51 pm

denniswingo says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Yea, so the volcanos in 1253, 1783, and 1816 meant nothing to climate….
————————————————————————————————————————–
In terms of a 10k year trend, no hey probably don’t. Just blips along the way.
Besides, surely the real interest in this is that (gentle) challenges to (some aspects of) the “settled science” are not only being invesigated but also being reported. Hard to imagine that happening even 5 years ago.
Big avalanches start with little snowballs and there’ve been a few snowballs thrown recently.

tty
August 11, 2014 3:52 pm

“For instance, biological samples taken from a core deposited in the summer may be different from samples at the exact same site had they been taken from a winter sediment.”
Pure bullshit. Annual layers are extremely rare and only exist in areas with oxygen-free bottom water (which doesn’t exist in the North Atlantic). Otherwise bottom living animals churn up the sediments (“bioturbation”), so no matter how finely you slice a core you will be sampling a mixture of sediments deposited over a longish period.

Don B
August 11, 2014 3:52 pm

When Marcott did his PhD thesis, before he apparently felt compelled to join the IPCC crowd, his proxies showed global cooling for several thousand years.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

redc1c4
August 11, 2014 3:56 pm

i don’t understand how everyone missed the obvious solution…
we just need to refine & adjust the data until it fits the model: problem solved.
you can mail me my Nobel Prize

Jim Clarke
August 11, 2014 3:57 pm

“It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.”
Yes, it does. Proclaiming, with emphasis, to the contrary, does not change the fact that this is just more evidence that their guesstimate of human induced warming is wrong. Talk about denial. ..

tty
August 11, 2014 3:57 pm

Actually everybody who has the slightest interest in Quaternary Geology knows that it is normal for the beginning of interglacials to be warmest and for the temperatures to then gradually decline, just as they have done in the current interglacial. This is the way things are, and it’s about time that ‘climate scientists’ start taking note of the real world, even when it doesn’t fit their models.

Joe
August 11, 2014 4:00 pm

Jim Clarke says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Proclaiming, with emphasis, to the contrary, does not change the fact that this is just more evidence that their guesstimate of human induced warming is wrong. Talk about denial.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Denial, or “pointing out a problem while still gettiing into print”?

tty
August 11, 2014 4:02 pm

“So, the idea that “glacier retreat” signals increasing temperature seems wrong. We may have reached a “maximum” that caused ice to melt — and are being pulled down from that maximum by the melting ice. Of course, I may be missing something.”
You certainly are. The glaciers have been expanding for the last 7,000 years or so, which is just what you would expect in a cooling world.

Jared
August 11, 2014 4:04 pm

Take an ice cube and stick it in 80 F temps, then reduce the temp to 75 F. I assume even though the temperature decreased that the ice cube kept melting. I will wait for Nye/Gore/Stokes to confirm.

August 11, 2014 4:05 pm

The Tautologist said: “The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.

1 2 3 7