Carbon isotope ratios are central to many reconstructions of past climate. For example the IPCC Working Group 1 cited C12/C13 ratios as the basis for determining some of their findings about climate in the last 1000 years. However, longer term reconstructions are less certain, and now with this new discovery, some of the long term work may have to be reconsidered.
From the primary researcher, “This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth’s history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods? As a consequence of our findings, changes in 13C/12C records need to be reevaluated, conclusions regarding changes in the reservoirs of carbon will have to be reassessed, and some of the widely-held ideas regarding the elevation of CO2 during specific periods of the Earth’s geological history will have to be adjusted.”
While this research doesn’t necessarily throw carbon dating out the window, it should cause people to rethink so many theories about early life that revolved around ages of sediment in the oceans.
I’ve looked up the study author’s CV and he appears to be a well-published marine geo-chemist who is not part of the global warming Team (ie. an objective scientist).
It is tough to say what this study means. If it does away with the relatively high CO2 estimates in the deep paleoclimate (1,500 ppm to 7,000 ppm), that would impact the empirical estimates of CO2-GHG sensitivity.
Since the estimates of CO2 temperature sensitivity (2.0C to 4.5C per GHG doubling – 3.0C average) depend 100% entirely on the results of climate models (ie. Hansen tweaking), I have prefered to use empirical results.
The recent temperature estimates (0.7C increase in temperatures for a 40% increase in GHGs since 1850) point to a sensitivity figure of 1.0C to 1.5C per doubling. The deep paleoclimate CO2 and temperature estimates also point to a 1.0C to 1.5C per doubling sensitivity.
1.5C per doubling indicates global warming will not be a problem at all. Temps will rise very gradually and we won’t even notice it. At Hansen’s 4.5C per doubling, however, we are in big trouble. That is why this figure and the CO2 sensitivity figure is so important. A low number is nothing to worry about – a high number means we need to take action now. The old CO2 and temperature estimates say there is nothing to worry about – hopefully this new study doesn’t rewrite that.
Anthony,
I also waited 3 days before saying anything. Last night, I searched google for news on what happened and got nothing. So I wrote you.
I cleaned up the post wording a bit this morning. Thanks for the consideration, keep up the great work.
From the news link provided by Mark, the Science Dude, Gary Robbins, concludes his story about believing in AGW with ” I just now that it does, something I’m reminded of every time I choke on exhaust fumes when I’m stuck in a traffic jam on the Santa Ana (5) Freeway.”
How scientific is this science dude?
Are the two tiny new spots old or new cycle? I can’t see them on the image.
=============================================
crosspatch (23:06:28) :
OT: spaceweather has a sunspeck, better look before it disappears!
The equatorial speck has vanished (I did see it at SOHO, but it vanished as quickly as it appeared). From the space weather site, there’s a map still showing the equatorial event (SC23?):
http://raben.com/maps/index.html
Also, in the latest image from SOHO, there appears to be a new speck in the southern hemisphere, towards the east – mid-latitudes – and appears to be a SC24 event.
What I find interesting is the sunspot number. There is the tiniest of all possible specks, and it gets a number of 12? Shouldn’t that be 11 (10 for a “group” and 1 for the number of spots in the group).
crosspatch
We can’t have a long space of time without them dang political sunspots.
Bill, that’s assuming no other factors are involved. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption. It’s not even a safe assumption to think that we’ve had a .7C increase since 1850. The instrumentation doesn’t support it.
For what it’s worth, McKitrick et al. (2007) asserts that recorded 20th Century temperature increase is exaggerated by around a factor of two.
Isn’t the c13/c12 ratio supposed to be one of the big indicators for man made carbon dioxide?
Anthony,
C12/C13 ratios are not used for dating. The strata being investigated has to be dated first. The carbon stable isotope ratio is meant to measure the relative level of the isotopes in the stratum and therefore by inference the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. The carbon stable isotopes are problematic as they are influenced by more than just CO2. I think the paper alludes to this and therefore is calling into doubt the absolute reference of the ratios of the isotopes to CO2 levels.
I think some of the bloggers are getting confused with C14 dating which is only accurate for about 45,000 years. C14 is a radioactive isotope and therefore useful for aging due to its decay rate (assumed to be a constant decay rate).
And, to Pofarmer. No, C12/C13 does not necessarily mean it is an indicator of man-made CO2. You cannot differentiate man-made as opposed to natural CO2 on the basis of carbon stable isotope ratios. It is only meant as an indicator of the concentration of CO2.
Leon Brozyna (09:05:39) :
Also, in the latest image from SOHO, there appears to be a new speck in the southern hemisphere, towards the east – mid-latitudes – and appears to be a SC24 event.
There are some burnt-out pixels on the SOHO images….
“…concludes his story about believing in AGW with ” I just now that it does, something I’m reminded of every time I choke on exhaust fumes when I’m stuck in a traffic jam on the Santa Ana (5) Freeway.” – How scientific is this science dude?”
Don’t be too hard on him. This is an obligatory requirement placed on all scientists by RC. Whenever you publish a finding which may conflict with the given truth, you are obliged to retract at the end, otherwise you cannot publish. Cf Gallileo, or Dr Jolliffe just recently.
In order to help your devotions, I enclose a copy of the Creed. Shortly, I hope to have a full Climate Change Catechism…
The Climate Change Creed – appointed to be read in laboratories.
I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.
Off topic
“The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say.”
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html
“The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say.”
They added that if the warming continues, we could see glaciers in Chicago within five years.
This earth is self replentising, self cleaning and self sustaining. Scientist prove themselves wrong on a daily basis. They have a long history of fraud, theory, and an ability to manipulate statistics to favor their view of what is happening.
Here is an example of statistical manipulation, the average lifespan has climbed in this century by leaps and bounds, right? Yet, If you take one simple factor out, you see that the average lifespan has declined, and that is Infant mortality. We have made saving babies more effecient, but lifespan has actualy dropped, but because of averages, the total numbers have dropped while the ones who do make it to adulthood live a much shorter life than the statistics suggest.
I suppose that there are falicies in the weather and it is beintg used as a political tool.
They will keep pushing “Global Warming” with limited and skewed data to fit the agenda, and the scientist that go against the grain will continue to lose funding.
Want to know why this is for political gain? go to carbontax.org and read the plan.
A World carbon tax creates a world government, it is that simple. so just agree, do not think for yourself and follow directions and be good little world citizens. Better go with this or tomorrow the sky may be falling!