This is a review from CO2Science.com of an interesting paper looking at Oxygen 18 records in water driven cave formations (stalactite, stalagmite or flowstone) than span a 4000 year period. Here is a basic description from the NZ Climate Centre:
“These deposits occur within karst terranes in subterranean caverns mainly as calcite (CaCO3) precipitated from groundwater that percolated through overlying limestone or marble rock. Interior cave climates and environments are generally stable; temperatures have little annual variation and are usually close to the external local mean annual air temperature. Oxygen and carbon stable isotope values (18O/16O and 13C/12C) obtained from speleothem calcite have been employed at many locations in the world to determine past climate conditions and can be used to interpret environmental changes.”
– Anthony
Reference
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.
What was done
Two master speleothem (stalactite, stalagmite or flowstone cave deposit) δ18O records were developed for New Zealand’s eastern North Island (ENI) and western South Island (WSI) for the period 2000 BC to about AD 1660 and 1825, respectively. The WSI record is a composite chronology composed of data derived from four speleothems from Aurora, Calcite, Doubtful Xanadu and Waiau caves, while the ENI record is a composite history derived from three speleothems from Disbelief and Te Reinga caves.
What was learned
For both the ENI and WSI δ18O records master speleothem histories, their warmest periods fall within the AD 900-1100 time interval, which is also where the peak warmth of a large portion of the temperature records found in our Medieval Warm Period Project fall (see our Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot).
What it means
Not wanting to acknowledge that the earth was likely as warm as, or even warmer than, it is currently a thousand or so years ago (when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today), the world’s climate alarmists have been loath to admit there was an MWP or Medieval Warm Period anywhere other than in countries surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. Consequently, the seven independent speleothem records that produced the results reported by Lorrey et al. are of great importance to the ongoing global warming debate, as they greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, and that there is thus nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth’s current warmth, and that it therefore need not be attributed to the historical increase in the air’s CO2 content.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Bryant (11:02:51) : wrote
” “A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead.”
Everytime my small business is hit with another tax I raise my prices. How is this scheme supposed to do anything at all?”
In the California version of the Carbon Control Plan, (AB 32 and the Climate Change Initiative), what is supposed to happen is this: Power prices do indeed go up as carbon-based power plants are shut and renewable plants are started; the Scoping Plan states power prices will increase around 12 percent.
Then, energy-hogs are encouraged (or forced, it is not clear yet which) to replace low-efficiency motors with high-efficiency ones — such as for air conditioners. The economic analysis stated that the net reduction in the power bill is sufficient to pay off the loan for the new high-efficiency motors. The investment parameters used were a 20 year loan at 5 percent interest. The economic analysis indicated that power consumption is reduced around 30 to 50 percent, while the power price increases only 12 percent. So, in the Plan, this is a win-win.
This is merely a part of the plan. Obama has publicly stated he favors a federal plan that accomplishes the identical goals as California’s AB 32 — although he has not yet said how it is to be accomplished. Senators Boxer, Warner, and Lieberman are allegedly working on the senate version of a bill for Obama’s signature in 2009.
It should be noted that the California economic analysis was blasted as hopelessly wrong by independent analysts.
The California AB 32 and Scoping Plan can be found here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm
Comments on the Scoping Plan can be found here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=scopingpln08
My own comment is number 390, the Legislative Analysts Office’s comment is 462.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Retired Engineer (16:49:06) :
Mike McMillan
Alas, the solar wind would blow those Mylar reflectors out of the solar system, with far more force than the weak gravitational effect of the LaGrange points. Anything light enough to launch and big enough to reflect a decent amount of light will sail quite well.
Darn! We’ll just have to put them at L3.
🙂
Mike McMillan:
But….but….but! WAIT!!! They CAN’T blow away in the solar wind….Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about this in his Mars trilogy…and it warmed up Mars just fine!
{sarcasm off}
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
another interesting article at CO2 Science
An Eighteen-Hundred-Year Climate Record from China
Volume 11, Number 53: 31 December 2008
‘And when one compares the peak warmth thus implied by their data for the Current and Medieval Warm Periods, it is readily seen that the Medieval Warm Period comes out on top as having been the warmer of the two.’
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N53/EDIT.php
I guess Obama will have to somehow prevent illegal immigrants from populating since they’re the fastest growing population in the US.
Even *if* the MWP were global… so what?
That hardly means that what is driving today’s climate is the same thing that drove that climate, or that the potentials of today’s forcings are anything compared to those forcings.
Suppose the MWP was a global phenomenon. What drove it? Solar fluctuations.
But we know that solar fluctuations are not the prime drivers of today’s climate — anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols are. Both are far stronger, and, more importantly, manmade (i.e unnatural).
So even if there was a global MWP… what does that imply about today’s climate?
If WUWT is one of the Best Science Blogs wouldn’t we expect more scientific comments and discourse. In this particular case- the paper by Lorrey et al. – the comments are purely based on what CO2science.org has quoted, which is very selective.
This lack of more information as to what the paper actually is saying makes a good scientific debate on this blog impossible. Judging from their comments only F Rasmin (14:45:41), MarcH (12:10:24) and Wally (13:52:05) appear to have had access to the full paper. It is a pity that the they are not more forthcoming in quoting more significant findings from the paper. The abstract which I posted above fails to make any reference to the MWP. I find that odd.
David Appell (00:39:35)
‘But we know that solar fluctuations are not the prime drivers of today’s climate — anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols are. Both are far stronger, and, more importantly, manmade (i.e unnatural).’
How interesting. Man made aerosols (assumed negative feedback) as posed to natural aerosols (assumed positive feedback) over rides the primary climate driver (CO2), cold phase PDO, La Nina, caused the troposphere hot spot to run off with the oceans hot spots and cooled down the stratosphere have been the reason why temperatures have been flat or declining over the last few years. All I can say is WOW! Hay, do you have a bridge for sale? I know someone in DC looking for one.
David Appell (00:39:35) :
But we know that solar fluctuations are not the prime drivers of today’s climate — anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols are. Both are far stronger, and, more importantly, manmade (i.e unnatural).
We do? There are four hypotheses buried in your assertion. Please provide links to comprehensive raw data so that it can be independently analyzed.
So even if there was a global MWP… what does that imply about today’s climate?
Referring back to your earlier agreement that the MWP was likely caused by solar fluctuations , the implication is that “today’s climate” was in a warming period due to solar activity, and it is transitioning to a cooling period due to lack of same.
David Appell,
since the modellers don’t trust the observations enough to verify their lack of a hot spot, please explain to us why we should trust the observations to verify dangerous warming??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There is NO evidence that there is ANYTHING happening that hasn’t happened many times in history. Arm waving to the contrary, AGW is bankrupt and trying to take us with it.
Please spend some time on Dr. Roy Spencer’s site to try and understand where they are going wrong!!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
KuhnKat: “There is NO evidence that there is ANYTHING happening that hasn’t happened many times in history.”
There is convincing evidence that the 35 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 200 years is mostly due to human activity. As far as we know, this has never happened before and is therefore a unique occurrence both within human history and geological time.
The unique nature of this occurrence, its source and its possible consequences makes it worthy of study, and, I would argue, imposes a responsibility on human beings to take it seriously. We only have one atmosphere and our wellbeing depends on its stability.
I would also argue that you don’t have to agree with AGW to appreciate the value of taking a risk-management approach to our actions that may impact on the climate system.
David Appell (00:39:35) :
Even *if* the MWP were global… so what?
That hardly means that what is driving today’s climate is the same thing that drove that climate, or that the potentials of today’s forcings are anything compared to those forcings.
Suppose the MWP was a global phenomenon. What drove it? Solar fluctuations.
But we know that solar fluctuations are not the prime drivers of today’s climate — anthropogenic GHGs and aerosols are. Both are far stronger, and, more importantly, manmade (i.e unnatural).
So even if there was a global MWP… what does that imply about today’s climate?
Where do I start?
1) Global warming is NOT unprecedented is a good start.
2) we don’t really know what drove the MWP warming so we don’t know what’s driving this one either.
3) Why didn’t the tipping point of H2O feedback kick in then? Is it selective & only kicks in for CO2 warming?
DaveE.
More likely ocean oscillations “drove” the MWP, if it even needs a “driver”. Bigger questions are, what pulled us out of the last ice age and when does it stop keeping us warm and cozy? We’re quibbling about a few tenths of a degree heating here a few tenths cooling there, which are pretty much meaningless in light of the inevitable ice age which WILL come.
Ed Scott
“Giant mirrors in space.”
If an asteroid hits one and it breaks, will the earth have seven epochs of bad luck? ;o)
What caused “Snowball Earth”? What caused it to thaw? Let’s say mirrors are easy to implement just for fun. What do we do with them when the earth cools too much? What do we do with them when the earth warms too much? Are these mirrors adjustable?
I say we just launch a giant window shade and open and close it as needed ;o)
Brendan H (13:23:43)
‘I would also argue that you don’t have to agree with AGW to appreciate the value of taking a risk-management approach to our actions that may impact on the climate system.’
A friend of mine has to have flood insurance (government mandated) with her mortgage loan. She lives in a small town in which is located at one of the highest elevations in Ohio. Her home is on a hill, one of the highest points in town, some 300ft above and 2.5 miles away from a small stream. It would cost her about $5000.00 and a real pain in the rear to drop the flood insurance just to save $150.00 / year. And this is good mandate by the government? It’s nothing more than a scam.
When the army corps of engineers redrew their flood plan back in the late 90’s it included this town even though the town has never been flooded. I know why the government did. So tell me why it’s good for this town?
Ed Scott
“Giant mirrors in space.”
If an asteroid hits one and it breaks, will the earth have seven epochs of bad luck? ;o)
No, breaking an asteroid will lessen the impact if it were headed for earth, thus saving civilization.
Roger Sowell (18:43:22) :
Mike McMillan:
But….but….but! WAIT!!! They CAN’T blow away in the solar wind….Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about this in his Mars trilogy…and it warmed up Mars just fine!
Dontcha just hate explaining jokes? L3 instead of L4 and L5 to get the mirrors out of the solar wind?
Solar sails come to mind here, not that I know of any way to tack upwind without a keel. Curved mirrors, maybe, “Objects in mirror are closer than they look.” Maybe an L1 mirror bouncing off L4 and L5 mirrors to change the angle. When it gets chilly enough, someone will figure it out. Then Greenpease will picket it.
Old Construction Worker: “I know why the government did. So tell me why it’s good for this town?”
Pass. On the face of it the insurance appears to be unnecessary, but I don’t know enough to make any definitive comment.
I’m not entirely clear why you bring up this example. Sure, governments can get things wrong, as can anybody, but the fact that human beings can make mistakes doesn’t strike me as a good reason for inaction in the face of risk.
Brendan H,
What you are claiming is that virtually the total increase in CO2 in the last 200 years is completely due to humans. To be blunt, this is total bull. You need to go back to where you got this information and get your money back.
280ppm is what the IPCC claim the CO2 level was pre-industrialisation. This is another unsubstantiated claim, BUT, I will humor you.
(280x.35)+280=378 approximately the current level
Now, since the oceans have been warming, and we KNOW that warming water releases CO2 (something that HAS been experimentally verified), what happened to all that NATURAL CO2, including other natural sources, which, by the way, DWARFS the human contribution?????
Of course, if the oceans haven’t warmed…….
Please show us links to one of your excellent peer reviewed papers that shows this 35% being anthropogenic!!! I think a better estimate wouldn’t even be one tenth of that.
While you are at it, please show us how this increase in CO2 would actually DO something, other than increase the growth of a lot of plant life. I would point out that the modellers and the IPCC have steadily backed off on their claims of direct CO2 effect to the point where they are now claiming that the heavy lifting will be done by water vapor.
And now we are back to Dr. Roy Spencer’s work. The water vapor can not do the heavy lifting because it is mostly a NEGATIVE feedback.
I would point out that the modellers claim that in the stratosphere this increase in CO2 is actually causing COOLING!!! Think about that for a while and get back to us.
And let us not forget that we are still looking for the rest of the GreenhouseGas warming fingerprint. Actually, we don’t have ANY of it as the stratosphere has been pretty much FLAT for the last 15 years, according to RSS data, instead of cooling. So, the modellers have claimed the extra CO2 will cause warming in the tropical upper troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere and we can’t see either in the last 15 years!!!! it doesn’t cool, it doesn’t heat, it just grows more biomass!!!
Sorry, I think you just struck out!!!!
Mike McMillan,
depending on the vector of the mirror, doing things like darkening part of it would definitely change the direction. Having the surface movable like slatted blinds would allow the surface area to be reduced to reduce thrust and change vector also.
Maybe a long cable dropped into the moon or earths gravity well could counter balance the thrust?? Don’t know if the orbits would even allow it though.
I guess I am thinking of it kinda like a kite!!
I like the idea of mounting politicians as thrusters!!! Not very powerful, but, they seem to last for a LOOOOONG time and would actually be useful!!
Brendan H (13:23:43) :
…
There is convincing evidence that the 35 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 200 years is mostly due to human activity. As far as we know, this has never happened before and is therefore a unique occurrence both within human history and geological time.
…
I would also argue that you don’t have to agree with AGW to appreciate the value of taking a risk-management approach to our actions that may impact on the climate system.
Why don’t you point us to the raw data that provides the “convincing evidence” for AGW? Then we can evaluate it and become “convinced.”
As to the second (quoted) assertion, please provide a cost – benefit analysis of the economic, social and political disruption caused by all the policies to be introduced in order to combat imaginary AGW.
Incidentally, while you’re at it, pleaase explain to all of us where these blasts of record setting cold air are coming from, since the poles are “warming.”
Brendan H (13:23:43) :
…
There is convincing evidence that the 35 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 200 years is mostly due to human activity. As far as we know, this has never happened before and is therefore a unique occurrence both within human history and geological time.
…
I would also argue that you don’t have to agree with AGW to appreciate the value of taking a risk-management approach to our actions that may impact on the climate system.
Why don’t you point us to the raw data that provides the “convincing evidence” for AGW? Then we can evaluate it and become “convinced.”
As to the second (quoted) assertion, please provide a cost – benefit analysis of the economic, social and political disruption caused by all the policies to be introduced in order to combat imaginary AGW.
Incidentally, while you’re at it, pleaase explain to all of us where these blasts of record setting cold air are coming from, since the poles are “warming.”
You take more of a risk just getting up in the morning than any phantom menace proposed by AGW. Yet you still do it…
KuhnKat: “Please show us links to one of your excellent peer reviewed papers that shows this 35% being anthropogenic!!!”
The letter at the link below explains the isotopic signature that provides the evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due mainly to human activities.
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml
A more technical explanation can be found here (this article also provides references to a couple of papers):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81
“While you are at it, please show us how this increase in CO2 would actually DO something…”
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change: “…most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The paper below shows a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at around 3 deg C.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf
“I would point out that the modellers claim that in the stratosphere this increase in CO2 is actually causing COOLING!!!”
Climate models predicted a cooling stratosphere/warming troposphere, and this has been observed. In fact, this phenomenon is regarded as a signature of CO2-induced warming, since solar warming would result in a more uniform spread of warming.
John W: “Why don’t you point us to the raw data that provides the “convincing evidence” for AGW?”
The “convincing evidence” I referred to was for the 35 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. See this article for an explanation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
“As to the second (quoted) assertion, please provide a cost – benefit analysis of the economic, social and political disruption caused by all the policies to be introduced in order to combat imaginary AGW.”
That might be difficult, since as far as I know there are no such studies relating to “imaginary AGW”. However, there is a well-known study relating to real AGW, and I can provide a link to that if you wish.
“Incidentally, while you’re at it, pleaase explain to all of us where these blasts of record setting cold air are coming from, since the poles are “warming.”
What “blasts of record setting cold air”? The sun is shining bright, temperatures are balmy and I’m off to the beach.
“Warming” is a relative term. What may be warm at the poles will be cold closer to the equator. The short-term perturbations you describe are called weather, and these should not be confused with the longer-term set of atmospheric conditions, which is climate.
Jeff Alberts: “You take more of a risk just getting up in the morning than any phantom menace proposed by AGW. Yet you still do it…”
But I look both ways when crossing the street. Just part of my daily risk-management strategy.