Guest Post by Steven Goddard part 1 is here
Ice cores clearly demonstrate the close relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, as seen below.
This relationship has been well understood by geologists for longer than Al Gore has been alive.
As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater declines. Thus increasing ocean temperature moves CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, and decreasing ocean temperatures move CO2 out of the atmosphere and back into the ocean. As you can see in the graph below, a 10C shift in temperature causes about 30% reduction in dissolved CO2. Closely corresponding to what we see in the measured ice core graph above.
Ice ages are driven by orbital cycles of the earth, and as ocean temperatures change, atmospheric CO2 levels respond – in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The relationships are uncontroversial.
Unfortunately, some educators besides Al Gore have taken liberties with the ice core data. Children’s global warming author Laurie David published the incorrect graph below, which shows that CO2 levels changed prior to the temperature levels. The graph misleads children into believing that ice ages are driven by changing CO2 levels, rather than the other way around. It is difficult to understand how this error could have happened accidentally.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/graph1.gif
This week is National Engineering Week in the US, when elementary school children are encouraged to learn math and science. Don’t they deserve and need accurate information? Are Laurie David’s book and Al Gore’s movie acceptable in a science classroom?
Whether or not you believe that the burning of fossil fuels significantly affects the earth’s temperature, the ice core data offers no evidence to support that – no matter how big the graph is.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: Bob Shapiro (11:10:30) :
In a word, no, though the pressure is high enough to cause basal melting under parts of the icecap.
Simon Evans,
Can you name one school where Fretwell’s book is used?
Can you name one school which hasn’t shown Al Gore’s Sci-Fi flick?
The point of this article is not to debate global warming, but rather to demonstrate that the widely used Vostok data adds little or no value to the discussion.
Regarding the 10C temperature decline during the ice ages, they are only talking about surface temperatures or temps on the top of the glaciers.
The polar ocean cannot get 10C colder.
It is already -2C to 3C and it would have to freeze right to the bottom to get 10C colder. In which case, I don’t think we would call it ocean anymore.
It is a little strange but liquid ocean temps during the ice ages could not have been much colder than they are now without turning into sea ice.
Maybe the surface was frozen far from the poles and was thicker than now, but underneath, the ocean temps didn’t decline very much, maybe 1C at most.
We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore….a book for little skeptics.
CO2 and Temp clarified
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/documents/not_scared_anymore_mr_gore.pdf
Ozzie John (12:56:50) : “Not sure if someone has an answer to this Q… ?”
You are right: So they are really saying: temperatures are decreasing, dissolved CO2 increasing and pH decreasing…but, in any case, CO2 won´t decrease pH lower than 6,8
WTF, in previous interglacial periods the temperature was even higher than in our time.
That’s another thing you never hear about.
In response to some of the comments here…
A breakdown of our planet’s total store of ice: click
[scroll down]
And whatever happened to the “acid rain” threat? click
Finally, China does not seem worried about pollution: clicky
Re: Questions on ocean acidification: see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/OceanAcidification.htm
Simon Evans (10:28:50) : says
“Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR…….”
Steven Goddard:
Interesting. It appears that Laurie David altered the chart — which was produced by the same organization that produced this chart: click
Sorry about that, I accidentally sent the post before finishing it.
Simon Evans (10:28:50) said:
‘Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR…..”
Simon Evans “basic physics” is so basic that he neglected to mention that the absorption characteristic of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear, it is logarithmic. The major effect in infrared absorption is in the first 100 ppm of CO2. As the concentration rises above this amount, the absorption becomes less and less. In other words, at present concentrations, CO2 is a spent force in climate variability. Only by invoking positive feedback of dubious provenance can AGW be made into a scary scenario.
Ice ages are driven by orbital cycles of the earth, … The relationships are uncontroversial.
The causes of ice ages are controversial. While orbital cycles may well play a role, there are multiple other proposed causes. None of which are generally accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages
Steven Goddard (13:28:18) :
Can you name one school where Fretwell’s book is used?
I’ve no idea – have you? So, if it’s not to your knowledge being “used” in a school you don’t feel the need to agree that a book aimed at 9 -12 year olds, and promoted by the site which you got your Laurie David graph from, contains appalling misrepresentations of the truth? Ok, fine. I thought your article was expressing concern about misleading children – silly me.
The point of this article is not to debate global warming, but rather to demonstrate that the widely used Vostok data adds little or no value to the discussion.
Care to respond to my points about basic physics, Steven? Do you think that increased CO2 absorbs more IR or do you not? It’s a straight question – would you like to give a straight answer?
To clarify, I was referring to glacial/interglacial phases pf Ice Ages, which is what I believe Stephen Goddard was referring to.
Ice Ages proper, which last tens of millions of years are likely caused by the position of the continents.
The problem with the orgital cycles explanation of glacials/interglacials is the ice core record shows a change from a cycle length of about 40,000 years to 100,000 years, while there has been no such change in orbital cycles.
It’s fair to say, we don’t know what causes glacial/interglacials and its one of the big mysteries in our climate..
One need to be prudent with the solubility graph of CO2 in water, as the graph presented is for pure water, not for seawater. The solubility of CO2 in seawater is quite different, and includes a lot of reactions, as result of total salt content, pH, bi/carbonate content, temperature and last but not least biological life.
All together, while the solubility of CO2 in ocean water from poles to equator (under zero to 26°C) decreases with about a factor 4, biological life increases with about a factor 4. Not fully compensating for the decrease, but just warning that it is not a simple solubility calculation…
See a lot more detailed information by Feely e.a. (including measured/estimated water-air exchange rates) at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
Further, the ratio between (mainky SH ocean) temperature is about 8 ppmv/°C over the full 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core. The previous warm period (the Eemian) was about 2°C warmer than this period, and the CO2 levels were around 300 ppmv. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels were about 280 ppmv, with a dip of about 6 ppmv from the MWP to the LIA (-0.8°C, thus again about 8 ppmv/°C). The conclusion thus is that the recent 100 ppmv increase is NOT from warming oceans (maximum 6 ppmv caused by warming of the oceans since the LIA), but from the use of fossil fuels.
There are many more reasons why humans are quite sure to blame for the increase in the atmosphere (not the same as to blame for GW, a complete different topic). That includes the measured increase of CO2 in the oceans, the decrease in pH of the oceans, the decrease of d13C in atmosphere and oceans (which excludes the oceans as main source), the deficiency in oxygen use, which excludes the biosphere as main source and last but not least the mass balance: We emit twice as much CO2 as what is found in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by nature as a whole, which by definition of non-destruction of mass excludes nature as source of the increase…
As a teaser, have a look at the collection of CO2 levels in ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
Compare the timing (including the Maunder Minimum and the trend since the start of the industrial revolution) to the d13C levels in coralline sponges (completely independent of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Further detailed information at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
I think Laurie David should curb his enthusiasm for scaring children with bodgy graphs. Or is this a different comedian? 🙂
Simon,
Had you read part 1, which is linked to in the first sentence of this article, you would have seen my discussion about CO2 absorption of LW radiation. No need to hyperventilate, though CO2 does cure that.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/08/vacationing-on-venus-basic-geology-series-part-1/
A few years ago, one of my daughter’s teachers was required to show Gore’s movie to the class. The teacher turned off the sound and switched the subtitles to Spanish because she said it was the only way she could ensure the kids learned at least *something* from watching the film. In many classes, the kids have been required to see the movie so many times that the teachers simply play the movies with no sound (or subtitles) and they continue to teach the class while the movie plays, ignored.
This doesn’t mean skepticism abounds in the schools, not in the SF Bay Area anyway. My daughter is often the only skeptic in her classes, but the others are starting to listen. Anthony’s blog is helping, giving us better data and better ways to discuss climate.
My daughter does wish Scientific American would publish a realistic article about things like, say, how the aging sensors on satellites are requiring agencies to write compensatory algorithms in order to find *some* value in the inaccurate data, the whole bit about accuracy and consistency and trends, or how scientists measure temperatures of ice, volcanoes, the troposphere, the sea, etc. If I could write articles about these things, I would. As is, I’m only qualified to write about textiles. What will be necessary to get Sci Am, for instance, to publish an article about one of the topics Anthony’s been covering here?
Robert Austin (14:28:22) :
“Simon Evans “basic physics” is so basic that he neglected to mention that the absorption characteristic of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear, it is logarithmic. The major effect in infrared absorption is in the first 100 ppm of CO2. As the concentration rises above this amount, the absorption becomes less and less. In other words, at present concentrations, CO2 is a spent force in climate variability. “
I am perfectly well aware of the logarithmic response, Robert. Roughly speaking (and it is rough, since at much lower levels of concentration the response is closer to linear, as is currently the case for other trace GHGs), each further doubling of CO2 will have the same forcing effect as the previous doubling. You may note that the variation in CO2 during the glacial cycles was in the region of a 66% increase from minimum to maximum, as indicated by Vostok cores. Do you think this would have had a warming effect or do you not? Your notion that CO2 is a ‘spent force’ because the response is logarithmic is curious – what do you think the effect of a further doubling would be in comparison to the last doubling?
Smokey (14:17:19) :
Interesting. It appears that Laurie David altered the chart — which was produced by the same organization that produced this chart
SPPI has the LD chart in its cache in association with their critique of the LD book here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/childrensbookerror.html
They did not originate the chart – they have copied it from the LD book to make their criticisms.
Simon Evans (14:37:01):
The feedback of CO2 on temperature has a physical base, but the absorption lines cause not more than 0.86°C temperature increase for 2xCO2, with water feedback that increases to 1.3°C temperature increase, all theoretical. The rest of the forcings/feedbacks as currently incorporated in GCM’s is rather questionable in magnitude and even in sign (clouds, aserosols,…)
For a 30% change in CO2 level during the glacial – interglacial transitions and back that means about 0.5°C “proven help” from CO2 for an about 10°C increase/decrease in temperature, not very huge (and much less than the 40% from Hansen’s estimates). More important, there is not the slightest influence from a CO2 feedback on temperature visible, not even in the most detailed ice cores, see Epica Dome C:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/epica5.gif
With thanks to Andre van den Berg who provided the graph…
Most of the two largest ice sheets today, in Antarctica and Greenland, flow over the ocean and are already below sea level. If they were to melt, sea level would not rise very much.”
– now that is indeed an example of extraordinary disinformation that it is very difficult to understand being the result of accident.
Simon Evans,
The Antarctic ice sheet is indeed mostly over the ocean. We have recently discovered through radar images that Antarctica is not the contiguous continent we thought it was and most of the Antarctic ice sheet rests on the ocean. See link below.
So the claims of x meters rise in sea level if the Antarctic were to melt (which of course it won’t) should be revised down by around 50% on the basis of this new evidence.
What is disturbing is the way AGW advocates ignore new scientific discoveries and cling to their outdated and now disproved dogma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AntarcticBedrock2.jpg
Ferdinand,
No one is disputing that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are caused by man. That discussion is irrelevant to this article.
Do you have any links to raw data showing that ocean pH is decreasing? Note that I asked for raw data, not interpretation.
Looking at the Atmospheric CO2 and temperature trend graphs it would be easy to conclude that the oceans are always at CO2 saturation and simply in-gas or out-gas as temperature rises and falls. This is what we see in both historical proxy data and currently observed data. Even seasonal variations are tracked accurately.
Is it possible that the decreased ph of the oceans has another driver ?
Our current observations would make this a likely scenario !
Ferdinand Englebeen makes a good point.
The oceans floors are generating limestone, etc. through sedimentation of biological organism skeletons, made up of CaCO3. This is where a lot of CO2 goes to.
And, unless we paved the whole planet in several hundred feet of cement, we will never get to release most of the CO2 that was originally around and is now holed up in the limestones and chalks, etc.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:55:47)
As a teaser, have a look at the collection of CO2 levels in ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
Beautiful graph but a little dramatic with the y axis not starting at zero. It is also interesting that the “hockey stick” blade starts at about 1800, not post WW2 when it is deemed that the CO2 emissions are to have skyrocketed. I am not defending Jaworowski, but how sure can we be that ice cores perfectly preserve ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Without independent scientific confirmation from other proxies, should we place 100% faith in ice core reconstructions?
Nevertheless, thank you for your most stimulating posts.