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.
Which doesn’t requirte any sacrifice. I noticed you’re still using a computer, and relying on the huge fossil-fuel infrastructure it requires. So apparently you’re not willing to make the big sacrifices for the sake of saving the planet.
Jeff Alberts: “I noticed you’re still using a computer, and relying on the huge fossil-fuel infrastructure it requires.”
Well, from my end around 70 percent of electricity is generated from renewable sources, so on that factor at least I’m probably doing better than average. From a wider perspective, individual efforts may be laudable but a much greater effect can be achieved through structural and collective efforts.
“So apparently you’re not willing to make the big sacrifices for the sake of saving the planet.”
I’m not interested in making sacrifices to “save the planet”. I’m interested in keeping the planet habitable for humans.
According to the Stern Review, the cost of combating climate change to 2050 would be around 1 percent of world GDP. That doesn’t strike me as a call to major sacrifice, although if a greater sacrifice were required then of course I would be obliged to accept it.
He’s not talking 1% of GWP. he’s talking 1% of GWP PER YEAR.
You are pretty darn cavalier about ditching a third to half of world economic growth. Do you have any idea what that adds up to in lost wealth when you compound it?
Furthermore, anyone with the force of law backed by guns can “oblige you to accept” just about any sacrifice he chooses you to make.
Evan,
Brendan is obviously a saint. Can’t you see how much he cares? No sacrifice is too much as long as the earth remains habitable. This man will have his name chiseled alongside so many others who gave their lives to create a paradise earth! An earth which will only grudgingly support about 5% of today’s runaway population.
Those will be glorious days indeed!
Mike Bryant
Or so they tell you, anyway. You fail to realize it’s not just your use of electricity at your single endpoint that’s the issue.
What’s the difference?
Too bad the Stern Review makes no sense.
OT, I think. More on how the City of Berkeley, California (a notoriously leftist city in a land noted for its fruits and nuts on two legs) is advancing the fight against AGW.
This link shows their Nov, 2008, government-sponsored finance program for renewable and solar projects on citizens’ homes, also on commercial properties, I think.
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Evanjones: “He’s not talking 1% of GWP. he’s talking 1% of GWP PER YEAR. You are pretty darn cavalier about ditching a third to half of world economic growth.”
You are confusing total GDP with GDP growth. The two are not the same. From the Stern Review: “Estimates based on the likely costs of these methods of emissions reduction show that the annual costs of stabilising at around 550ppm CO2e are likely to be around 1% of global GDP by 2050, with a range from –1% (net gains) to +3.5% of GDP.”
There is no mention here of a 1 percent annual reduction in world GDP growth, rather a cost of 1 percent of world GDP per annum. This is a lot of money for sure, but it compares to an estimated best-scenario cost of around 3 percent for doing nothing.
Jeff Alberts: “Or so they tell you, anyway.”
Do you know of any reason why I should disbelieve the figure?
“You fail to realize it’s not just your use of electricity at your single endpoint that’s the issue.”
Not at all. As I said: “…on that factor…I’m probably doing better than average”. I’m one individual. I am not responsible for the entire infrastructure of the internet.
“What’s the difference?”
Mainly a matter of emphasis, but in my view an important emphasis on human life and wellbeing.
Brendan H (14:35:47) :
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. [Link omitted]
Thanks for the link. However, while it presented the assertion that the increase was due to human activity, it didn’t provide the evidence. Did you provide the wrong link by mistake? Incidentally, there are some serious errors in reasoning contained in the article. For example, “The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.” Yes, sometimes a sink, other times a source.
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.
I understand your objection, so let me rephrase: Please provide a cost analysis of the economic, social and political disruption caused by all the policies to be introduced in order to combat AGW. Preferably other than the Stern Report.
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.
Thank you for clearing that up. Maybe you could help with a couple of other points:
Why are short-term cool perturbations called weather, but short-term warm perturbations called climate change? Shouldn’t they both be called the same thing?
Why is a decade long period of warming temperatures called climate change, but a decade long period of stable or cooling temperatures called called weather? Shouldn’t they both be called the same thing?
Brendan H wrote:
I’m not interested in making sacrifices to “save the planet”. I’m interested in keeping the planet habitable for humans.
If you want to keep the planet habitable for humans, don’t support carbon sequestration measures that will deprive plants of much needed CO2. More CO2 is good for the environment.
Growth at the doubled [CO2] resulted in an ≈40-fold increase in aboveground biomass and a 20-fold increase in plant cover of Artemisia frigida Willd, a common subshrub of some North American and Asian grasslands. This CO2-induced enhancement of plant growth, among the highest yet reported, provides evidence from a native grassland suggesting that rising atmospheric [CO2] may be contributing to the shrubland expansions of the past 200 years.
Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature
Comprehensive reviews of the plant science literature indicate that a 300 part per million (ppm) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration generally increases plant growth by approximately 30%. … As a result, predicting the ultimate biospheric consequences of a doubling of the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration may prove to be much more complex than originally anticipated.
Effects of season-long CO2 enrichment on cereals. I. Growth performance and yield
Total above-ground biomass increased mainly in the CO2 concentration range between 400–550 p.p.m. for wheat, and between 400–700 p.p.m. for barley…. At the highest CO2 concentration yield increase amounted to 19% and 27% for the two wheat cultivars, and 52% and 89% for the two barley cultivars in comparison with the ambient CO2 level.
Carbon Dioxide Depletion Effects in Energy Efficient Greenhouses
A primary concern in energy conserving greenhouses is carbon dioxide (CO2), which, if permitted to deplete in the greenhouse atmosphere, causes decreases in net photosynthesis rate (NPR), as well as increases in leaf transpiration in tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce. Decreasing the NPR will result in lower yields and quality as well as other plant responses. Increasing the transpiration can lead to expensive relative humidity (RH) control considerations within energy conserving greenhouses.
Carbon Dioxide and Environmental Stress
In 18 studies of the effect of low CO2 on crops, native shrubs, wild annuals, and herbaceous perennials, reducing CO2 from 350 ± 10 µmol m-2 s-1 to 180 µmol m-2 s-1 reduced both photosynthesis and yield by approximately 50 % (Fig. 3; Sage, 1995). These studies were conducted under favorable thermal, light, and nutrient conditions, and not under conditions of drought, thermal extremes, low humidity, or nutrient deficiency, which can alter the relationship between photosynthesis, productivity, and atmospheric CO2.
Warmer is better. Higher CO2 is better.
That last link doesn’t look right. Trying again. It’s a Google book link; the quoted bit is on p.292.
Carbon Dioxide and Environmental Stress
In 18 studies of the effect of low CO2 on crops, native shrubs, wild annuals, and herbaceous perennials, reducing CO2 from 350 ± 10 µmol m-2 s-1 to 180 µmol m-2 s-1 reduced both photosynthesis and yield by approximately 50 % (Fig. 3; Sage, 1995). These studies were conducted under favorable thermal, light, and nutrient conditions, and not under conditions of drought, thermal extremes, low humidity, or nutrient deficiency, which can alter the relationship between photosynthesis, productivity, and atmospheric CO2.
Yes, because people will tell you want you want to hear. You didn’t specify which “renewable” sources.
So we don’t all need to switch to mercury-tainted CFLs, or use one piece of toilet paper when doing #2? Whew, that’s a relief.
Well then, it’s been proven time and time again that technology and wealth generation are better for human life and wellbeing than carbon credits and silly notions about being able to control the global thermostat to some preconceived “optimum”. Warmer is better. And there’s no evidence that “tipping points” are even possible, therefore there is no catastrophe and nothing to see here.
John W: “However, while it presented the assertion that the increase was due to human activity, it didn’t provide the evidence.”
The evidence was in the references to the studies. Admittedly, this evidence is somewhat indirect. An article that references more direct studies of CO2 composition in the atmosphere can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
“Incidentally, there are some serious errors in reasoning contained in the article. For example, “The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere.” Yes, sometimes a sink, other times a source.”
The preceding sentence in the article refers to “‘the last 200 years” and “the direction of the change”, so the writer is presumably referring to net result over that period.
“Please provide a cost analysis of the economic, social and political disruption caused by all the policies to be introduced in order to combat AGW. Preferably other than the Stern Report.”
If you want views on possible “disruption” you would be best to check out some of the opposition commentary. However, if you want analysis of the possible economic, social and political effects of AGW mitigation, the Stern Review is the most accessible on offer, although there are spin-off commentaries such as this report from the UK’s Tyndall Centre:
“In terms of GDP output lost, this represents a maximum cost of a loss of
one year’s growth in 2050, i.e.the modelled output in 2050 would not be reached until 2051, in a context in which GDP is likely to have risen by two to three hundred percent in most economies by this date.”
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/stern_review.pdf
“Why is a decade long period of warming temperatures called climate change, but a decade long period of stable or cooling temperatures called…weather?”
Decade-long periods are difficult to classify as either weather or climate. In any case, these periods should be viewed within the context of the long-term trend, and that trend is warming.
Katherine: “If you want to keep the planet habitable for humans, don’t support carbon sequestration measures that will deprive plants of much needed CO2. More CO2 is good for the environment.”
Thanks for the links. Our response to climate change is a matter of weighing the likely advantages against the likely disadvantages, so it’s not just a matter of more CO2 good, less CO2 bad.
Jeff Alberts: “Yes, because people will tell you want you want to hear. You didn’t specify which “renewable” sources.”
Hydro and geothermal:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/nz-energy-statistics/new-zealand-energy+-statistics-sep07qtr-revised-hotp.htm
Eyeballing, the latest figures looks more like 64 percent. It was getting towards 70 percent a few years ago.
“…use one piece of toilet paper when doing #2? Whew, that’s a relief.”
Well, it’s a load off my mind too. Entirely OT, but I’ve often thought that #2 was a fundamental argument against the existence of God. Call that design?
Haven’t you heard Brendan H? Environmentalists do not consider hydro to be “green” or “renewable”.
jeez: “Haven’t you heard Brendan H? Environmentalists do not consider hydro to be “green” or “renewable”.”
I hadn’t heard. Nevertheless, this chap believes that hydro counts as a renewable source:
http://www.trustpower.co.nz/AnnualReport08/ChiefExecutivesReport.aspx
Quote: “The above initiatives are all positive for TrustPower with its generation currently all renewable hydro or wind.”
Brendan H
It appears you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046
http://lightsonoregon.com/dam.php
Very interesting articles, jeez. There was an article in this week’s San Jose Mercury-News that warned of massive flooding if a local dam suddenly collapsed. Complete with a scary map of who would be drowned. Interesting that numerous attacks on hydro power are coming from so many different directions, huh?
I get the feeling that the UN/IPCC has an agenda that wants to take our society back to eating grubs in mud huts. Anyone proposing that hydroelectric power is bad either has a screw loose, or is deliberately conniving to hobble Western civilization. I suspect the latter.
Jeez: “It appears you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.”
That’s the magic of renewable energy. Seriously, the study referenced in the New Scientist article is for a specific environment, and not all dams are built in those sorts of environments. It’s a case of horses for courses. (Or perhaps dams for dams.)
I have not claimed that hydro is emission-free, and my claim as to my own record is merely “better than average”. That said, not everyone is happy with hydro:
http://rivers.org.nz/article/submission-climate-change-emissions-trading-and-renewable-preference-bill
As with any other resource, water is subject to competing uses, so there will always be dissension and tradeoffs over priorities. I don’t see that as a valid argument against taking action to mitigate climate change.
Brenda H.
It was simply a rebuttal to your claim of using 70% renewable energy. I’m a big fan of hydro and feel we need many more damns in most parts of the world. However, the same environmentalists you side with on “mitigate climate change” explicitly disqualify your primary source of electricity as a “renewable” solution. So your contention about how much you are already doing to fight the good fight is nullified.
Also, you don’t really get credit for just having been born in or living in an area which just happens to use hydro and geothermal. You need to sacrifice or you can stop telling others what a great job you are doing. Personally I suggest doing without electricity, any form of heating, or mechanized transportation, unless you explicitly own the windmills or solar unit producing the power. As long as you are on the grid your claims of doing well, ie better than others, are nothing but hypocrisy. So I look forward to your next post made without the use of electricity from the grid.
Don’t worry Jeez, Brendan will do the right thing. Our masters decree that hydro is a killer of fish, however mostly it is just unnatural. How anyone could believe that these monstrous dams are AOK is beyond me. Have you ever seen the gigantic dynamos within the dams? Truly they are not conducive to a gentle walk with our sweet habitable earth.
And wind… don’t get me started… killing birds and bats and… well you know…
Yes the sweet neanderthal had the right idea. No one really needs to live past 20 or 25 years anyway.
How I look forward to living in complete harmony with nature!
No amount of carbon this or CO2 that will “mitigate climate change” The best we can do is adapt to the changing climate, which is what we’ve always had to do. Trying to change the global climate to suit us is doomed to failure. I thought you might be intelligent enough to see that…
Brendan H wrote:
Thanks for the links. Our response to climate change is a matter of weighing the likely advantages against the likely disadvantages, so it’s not just a matter of more CO2 good, less CO2 bad.
Then you know that colder temperatures lead to increased mortality as compared with warmer temperatures.
95,000 Excess U.S. Deaths during the Cold Months Each Year
Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study
Populations in Europe have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperatures ranging from 13.5°C to 24.1°C, and can be expected to adjust to global warming predicted for the next half century with little sustained increase in heat related mortality. Active measures to accelerate adjustment to hot weather could minimise temporary rises in heat related mortality, and measures to maintain protection against cold in winter could permit substantial reductions in overall mortality as temperatures rise.
The Impact of Global Warming on Health and Mortality
Meanwhile, it must not be forgotten that cold weather in winter causes many more deaths than heat in summer, even in most subtropical regions, and measures to control cold-related deaths need to continue.
Jeez: “However, the same environmentalists you side with on “mitigate climate change” explicitly disqualify your primary source of electricity as a “renewable” solution.”
I don’t “side with” environmentalists. Otherwise, the fact that some or even all environmentalists may oppose hydro is not a claim on my allegiance. People who agree on a particular matter can also have differences on other matters.
Earlier I provided a link to a recreational group that opposed what it saw as preferential treatment for hydro under a proposed emissions trading scheme. Should I check their credentials before taking a position? I don’t think so. Each issue must be argued on its own merits.
“You need to sacrifice or you can stop telling others what a great job you are doing.”
I don’t claim to be doing a great job. I was responding to another challenge that also demanded sacrifice. As I pointed out, making sacrifices is not a major focus for me, and while you may think that major sacrifices are necessary to combat climate change, the Stern Review claims otherwise, and that strikes me as a reasonable position.
Tackling climate change requires a collective effort. Individual actions may make some people feel good, but feeling good about ‘doing something’ about climate change is not my goal.
Brendan H
You said:
and while you did, sort of but not really, qualify it with:
In fact, if you accept the fact that I am average in my carbon footprint or worse than average because I live in San Francisco, California, USA, you have specifically said you are doing more in your great fight than I am, simply because you happened to have been born in or are living in New Zealand. In fact you are doing nothing except pontificating. Seriously, what is laudable about having a mother who gave birth to you in New Zealand when it comes to saving the world for humanity?
Brendan H wrote:
Tackling climate change requires a collective effort. Individual actions may make some people feel good, but feeling good about ‘doing something’ about climate change is not my goal.
Why should we tackle climate change in the first place? Climate changes. All we can do is adapt to it. One can hope it becomes warmer, but we should be prepared if it becomes colder.
Jeez: “In fact, if you accept the fact that I am average in my carbon footprint or worse than average because I live in San Francisco, California, USA, you have specifically said you are doing more in your great fight than I am, simply because you happened to have been born in or are living in New Zealand.”
We’re talking about a specific claim: one’s personal responsibility in “using a computer, and relying on the huge fossil-fuel infrastructure it requires”.
I was challenged about my apparent unwillingness to make “big sacrifices” to “sav[e] the planet”. Therefore, the context of personal responsibility, ie ethics, was introduced by another person.
I rejected both the notions of sacrifice and saving the planet, but pointed out that in my situation – where a majority of electricity generation comes from renewable sources — I was probably doing better than average.
In other words, I do not need to make the sort of sacrifices the person had in mind. You have chosen to interpret “better than average” to mean that I am acting more morally than others, such as yourself, which you know must be nonsense because I don’t know other people’s carbon footprint.
What I know is that within the context of emissions from electricity generation I am probably doing better than average, since few other countries can match mine in the percentage of electrical power generated from renewable sources.