Meanwhile today while CO2 is increasing, the Antarctic ice cap is also increasing.
Bill Illis writes about it:
Ice sheets formed in Antarctica about 35 million years ago when CO2 was about 1,200 ppm. Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 350 to 290 million years ago when CO2 was about 350 ppm. Ice sheets also formed in Antarctica about 450 to 430 million years ago when CO2 was about 4,500 ppm. The more common denominator is when continental drift places Antarctica at the south pole.
Below, Antarctica today.
New data illuminates Antarctic ice cap formation
From a Bristol University Press release issued 13 September 2009
A paper published in Nature
New carbon dioxide data confirm that formation of the Antarctic ice-cap some 33.5 million years ago was due to declining carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A team of scientists from Bristol, Cardiff and Texas A&M universities braved the lions and hyenas of a small East African village to extract microfossils from rocks which have revealed the level of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere at the time of the formation of the ice-cap.
Geologists have long speculated that the formation of the Antarctic ice-cap was caused by a gradually diminishing natural greenhouse effect. The study’s findings, published in Nature online, confirm that atmospheric CO2 started to decline about 34 million years ago, during the period known to geologists as the Eocene – Oligocene climate transition, and that the ice sheet began to form about 33.5 million years ago when CO2 in the atmosphere reached a tipping point of around 760 parts per million (by volume).
The new findings will add to the debate around rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere as the world’s attention turns to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen which opens later this year.
Dr Gavin Foster from the University of Bristol and a co-author on the paper said: “By using a rather unique set of samples from Tanzania and a new analytical technique that I developed, we have, for the first time, been able to reconstruct the concentration of CO2 across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary – the time period about 33.5 million years ago when ice sheets first started to grow on Eastern Antarctica. “
Professor Paul Pearson from Cardiff University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, who led the mission to the remote East Africa village of Stakishari said: “About 34 million years ago the Earth experienced a mysterious cooling trend. Glaciers and small ice sheets developed in Antarctica, sea levels fell and temperate forests began to displace tropical-type vegetation in many areas.
“The period culminated in the rapid development of a continental-scale ice sheet on Antarctica, which has been there ever since. We therefore set out to establish whether there was a substantial decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as the Antarctic ice sheet began to grow.”
Co-author Dr Bridget Wade from Texas A&M University Department of Geology and Geophysics added: “This was the biggest climate switch since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
“Our study is the first to provide a direct link between the establishment of an ice sheet on Antarctica and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and therefore confirms the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global climate.”
The team mapped large expanses of bush and wilderness and pieced together the underlying local rock formations using occasional outcrops of rocks and stream beds. Eventually they discovered sediments of the right age near a traditional African village called Stakishari. By assembling a drilling rig and extracting hundreds of meters of samples from under the ground they were able to obtain exactly the piece of Earth’s history they had been searching for.
Further information:
The paper:Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition. Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster & Bridget S. Wade. Nature online, Sunday 13th September.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TonyB: The issue of defining a global temperature that Essex, McKitrick, and Andresen raise is essentially a red herring (or strawman). Yes, it is a concept without a precise thermodynamic definition…but technically the same is true of temperature itself in any non-equilibrium system and no systems are exactly in equilibrium. It is basically a metric. (It is also important to note that Hansen et al. point out that the reason they measure temperature anomalies rather than global temperatures is that anomalies have better properties in that the values tend to vary more slowly over the earth. E.g., the temperature can be very different between a mountaintop and a valley location a few miles away but the anomalies will exhibit a very strong correlation.)
In the Essex et al. paper, they do try to show that their concerns have some practical meaning for temperature trends by taking the temperature records from a few sites around the world (12 or 20 or something like that) and showing that the way they perform the average affects the value they get for the trends. In order to do this, they basically average different moments of the temperature, e.g., T, T^2, T^3, and so forth (and then take the appropriate root)…So, the average of T is the usual arithmetic average, the average of T^2 taken to the 1/2 power is what we call the root-mean-squared average, and so forth.
The problem is that in order to illustrate that this had a significant effect on the trend that they compute, they do this over a ridiculous range of powers…going from something like -125 to 125 as I recall. So, for the most negative power what they are really doing is simply putting all the weight on the lowest temperature from each month with essentially no weight on the other stations and for the most positive power what they really doing is simply putting all the weight on the highest temperature from each month with no weight on the other stations. That is obviously a screwed up way to average and is basically just showing that one should not define the average metric in a really stupid way. Somehow, this is supposed to be very profound!
If you restrict the powers that you use to ones that could potentially be justified, say 1 to 4 [since 1 is just a direct average of the temperature and 4 is an average of the radiative power which goes as T^4], you find that the trend you get has only a small dependence on which of these powers you use. (My hypothesis is the dependence may even get significantly smaller as you go to a bigger data set than just 12 or 20 stations, but I haven’t proven this to myself.)
Joel Shore (17:56:10) :
thats right. there is no need to use an equation pulled out of thin air when thermometers suffice.
Joel/Scott, it is all very wonderful of course discussing possible future scenarios and analysing infinitesimally small temperature rises but there are some facts that have to be addressed and acknowledged. Historically CO2 and temperature have never been linked nor have they been since accurate records have started. There has been no sudden warming that would portend catastrophic climate change coming, the understanding of CO2 balance and climate physics itself is low, we do not know that CO2 is a significant climate forcing in real life rather than in a physics books (and it has been seriopusly challenged), none of the climate models have any significant predictive capability and yet they are the only basis for AGW, there may have been recent warming which is easily within the range of historic variability and no evidence that it has been caused by anthropogenic CO2, AGW is falsified by everything that the planet does and by thousands of honest scientists who are now challenging the AGW Industry. There are many exceptional books being written by scientists such as Plimer and Journalists like Wishart that at last explain the science (or lack of science) and political motivation behind the AGW Industry to the general public who are otherwise informed only by AGW propaganda which is at times hysterical and patently false. As I have said many times, AGW is nothing more than a weak hypothesis and how it has induced such shrill hysterics in the politico-scientific community is beyond me. I also dislike the notion that the propaganda is being peddled to school children.
TomP
Your ‘riddle’ was how you managed to get to Mars whilst not answering my previous posts. I have quoted three papers now on the concept of a global temperature and query its value in determining precise figures to fractions of a degree based on a tiny number of data points, many of which were not reliable in the first place.
Do you believe them to be absolutely accurate as a representation of the globe back to 1850 to the fractions of a degree claimed, that demonstrates the globe has warmed .7C since the end of the LIA? Itself a little bizarre in as much if we weren’t warming from the LIA we would be in trouble.
I quoted 17 links which you have evidently not read as you have made no refernce to the content of them-including Hansens paper which is at the bottom of much of the historic datasets.
My questions are repeated below, although numerous other comments were also made about past historic events that you have not engaged with, that tries to put the current warming period into a historic context. This is not the first warm period ever and I am sure it won’t be the last.
I am also bemused as to how you manage to make yet another logic leap from my querying the accuracy of 150 year old data sets to your equating me with a creationist.
UHI from cities on a glacier? The brief excursion to Mars and now creationism. Hmmm.
As I say, I am away for a few days and by that time this party will have dropped off the board so further discussion on this thread will be pointless. I will however try to tune in for your reply if I get the chance.
My earlier questions read as follows;
“So let us ask ourselves a few questions-
* Has the temperature at a tiny number of specific measuring points increased since 1850? Possibly.
* Do we know the amount of any change of a notional global temperature with scientific accuracy to fractions of a degree? Certainly not.
*Is sufficient notice paid of distortions such as UHI, poor siting, changes of sites, numbers, equipment etc? No
* Is the current warm era unprecedented in human history? Certainly not.
* Should we change the world system because of short term and potentially inaccurate information based on incomplete temperature records, ignore past climatic trends and link everything to a tiny rise in human generated emissions overshadowed by natural emissions and water vapour? No
*Do we know anything like as much as we think we do about climate. No.
*Is that any excuse to be wateful and reckless in our use of resources? No.
*Is there a practical alternative to burning fossil fuels in order to maintain our own standard of living whilst using carbon as the means of dragging the third world out of poverty, sickness and hunger? Unfortunately not yet.
with best regards
Tonyb
P Wilson,
“what wories me as a human being than a scientist, or a scientific thinker, is that the greenhouse effect on earth can’t be relied on to provide warmth, so we could move into a cool – severly cool period at any time.”
To worry about unpredictable cooling events while ignoring the current warming trend is rather like anxiously standing outside your home in a rain storm just in case your house catches fire.
It is a curious line of thinking, and one that must have some rather odd beliefs to sustain it as you become increasingly soaked. One that evidently gives you comfort is “record temperatures haven’t been broken anywhere around the world for the last 40 years”.
But it is an unfounded belief. Considering just the last ten years, England in 2003 reached a record high at Brogdale, Kent. France, Switzerland and Portugal set records the same year, and further afield Pakistan in 2004 and Japan in 2007.
Joel Shore (17:56:10
Think of the analogy of a fountain that just recirculates the water that goes out the drain and sprays it back out again. The water level in this fountain (ignoring evaporation) will be constant. Now imagine that someone comes with a hose and starts adding water to the fountain and the water level starts to rise. Even if they are adding water at a rate slow compared to the rate at which the fountain spits out water, it is they who will be responsible for the rise in the water level.
Better still, think of a man who lives an averagely energetic life and who drinks 2 litres of water a day, goes to the gym, and does all the regular things. he increases his intake of water by 3% or else a few more millilitres per day.
Joel Shore and Anthony/moderators
Thank you for your clear and lucid explanation 20 20 47-your logic process is much easier to follow than that of others, although not as good as P Wilson 17 26 54
Several of us have said before that -with Anthony’s perrmission- you ought to write a guest post so you are in the line of fire rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Perhaps your very good post referenced above could form the basis on the lines of;
“Is the the concept of a global temperature valid-can it be accurate to fractions of a degree to 1850 and inform global economic policy?’
I will post this suggestion on tips and notes also. I think it would be a good topic.
Tonyb
One key detail was missing from this article; the money collected from a cap and trade program is intended to be rebated equally to energy consumers. Hence, those who are reasonably frugal with their energy consumption will pay even less under this plan, and those who overindulge will pay more. Can get much more American than that.
Omission of crucial detail is a common ploy of propagandists;
Propaganda Techniques: Army Psyops Field Manual No.33-1, Appendix I
Tom P (01:39:06)
here is a list of world record temperatures. Note the incidence/period of the years they occurred
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html
Joel. I know its a reiteration of a previous theme, but ice core data regarding c02 can be misleading, and shows a trend, but not an accurate data sample. If c02 is measured in 1815 at 450ppm in the northern hemisphere by pettenkofer, which is scientifically valid, but 330ppm from ice cores, which has less validity due to solubility factors of water and c02 absorbtion from ice, as well as other variables such as local variation, then we have quite adifferent set of inferences regarding past data. Some of the MWP and earlier holocene optimum temperatures inferred generally provide some inference to temperature. In the MWP for example, there were grape records as far North as Hadrians wall. Generally, wine growers were attached to churches (How Christians love their booze!) , and the extent of the written records are a valuable series of documents, although there are other proxies from across the northern & southern hemispheres.
Oh, and oceanic cycles of total flow are slow and grinding at 800 years total. Its reasonable to say that c02 today is outgassing from oceans from this suggested trend from prior correlations of th elag between temperature and c02
TonyB,
I asked you to repeat the single “reasonable question” you said you posed to me earlier, not to repeat a string of rhetorical questions.
I’m not sure we can take much more of this suspense. Please, what on earth is it?
revision: 270ppm from ice cores and 440ppm by direct air measurements in 1815
Joel Shore,
Essex et al. have probably made what appears to be the most scientifically grounded case that a global temperature does not exist (C Essex, R McKitrick, B Andresen – Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, vol 32, p1 2007, online at http://www.glar.gl/andresen.pdf ).
You are probably right to take issue with the practical relevance of whether the choice of a mean, root-mean square or higher average makes any discernible difference to a calculation of anomalies which are a few degrees or less, a choice that the authors feel cannot be made.
However, I feel there is a more fundamental problem with this paper and have emailed the lead author, Chris Essex, as below:
“Professor Essex,
“I have just read your paper on the concept of a global temperature (C Essex, R McKitrick, B Andresen – Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, vol 32, p1 2007) and hope you can respond to my following comments concerning it.
“You state: “In special circumstances averaging might approximate the equilibrium temperature after mixing, but this is irrelevant to the analysis of an out-of equilibrium case like the Earth’s climate.”
“You then continue “Setting mixing aside…” and consider it no further.
“Firstly, what are these special circumstances? Is it that the system should have a linear dependence between energy and temperature, which is fulfilled by a gas. If the gases obey the gas laws, as the Earth’s atmosphere does to a very high precision, should not the conditional “might approximate” be replaced by “equates”?
“Secondly, why is mixing irrelevant to the out-of-equilibrium cases? Mixing is used all the time to bring an out-of-equilibrium system to a state of maximum entropy where a valid single temperature measurement can be made.
“By pursuing rather than ignoring the gaseous and mixable qualities of the atmosphere, it is possible to come to a very precise, and measurable, definition of global temperature. Normally such global temperatures are quoted for a particular fraction (or rather shell) of the atmosphere. Hence the surface temperature is not the temperature of the actual surface of the Earth at a particular location but the temperature of the air in a shaded location a few feet above. Hence if that corresponding thin shell of the atmosphere is first thermally isolated and then allowed to mix, the final temperature of the gas will be the surface global temperature.
“Of course it is impossible to practically isolate and then mix this fraction of the atmosphere globally. However, as the energy of the gas varies linearly with temperature, if the temperature of the gas is measured at sufficient appropriate points, a simple arithmetic average will give the surface global temperature.
“There is no doubt that taking such measurements is much more easily said than done. But it would appear that determining a global temperature is a challenge to measurement, not a conceptual problem.
“All the best…”
I look forward to his response.
@ur momisugly masonmart (01:06:44) :
For the most part, every one of your points in this comment is incorrect and they have been addressed ad infinitum. (Quite a few of these are addressed on my site so I won’t repeat them here.) I will be adding much more in the next few months because I will be adding a “misinformation” page to address the most common mistakes from well-intentioned folks and those that are purposely misleading the public.
Journalists do not do science so they are quite low on the credibility scale. Plimer is worse because one of these two things are true:
1) He really is ignorant of the current science. (Bad)
2) He knows the current state of the science and is intentionally misrepresenting it. (Worse.)
Scott Mandia.
I’d agree that journalists are ignorant of science. One notices this particular here in the UK where impending catastrophe stories are recycled every season. It makes good press.
However, one point i’d like to make. When those defined as “sceptics” make claims, at least they could be said to be well versed in the fashionable theory, or paradigm of AGW theory. It is on this basis that one looks for refutations and contradictions, by invoking as wide a data source as is possible. This is how scientific technique proceeds. However, AGW theorists don’t even bother to look into the analysis put forth by, lets face it, peer reviewed analyses using data sets that don’t lend much support to AGW theory. Its as though the scientific temper goes from back to front, and that the conclusion is made, then evidence made to fit the conclusion.
On this basis, anyone could say “During the last 40 years TV’s and radios have increased. The average temperature has also increased slightly. Therefore, increased radio and TV transmission traffic causes global warming”
One more pause though for Joel. I used the human biology analogy rather than the water fountain analogy, as a fair quantity c02 changes form as it passes via photosynthesis and oceanic absorbtion, as water does in bilology. I don’t think this is the case with water foutains.
Scott Mandia is obviously not capable of thinking clearly. He writes about another poster:
Either it’s “every one of your points is incorrect,” or it’s “for the most part.” Those two statements in the same sentence are mutually contradictory, which is typical of Mandia’s [and most other CD-afflicted alarmists’] illogical thinking. Facts are foreign to them; emotion rules.
Since hyper-alarmists tend toward the former view [that every fact cited by a skeptic is incorrect], let’s look at some of those points — keeping in mind that Mandia fails if even one of them is true:
“Historically CO2 and temperature have never been linked nor have they been since accurate records have started.” Yep. Note the R² non-correlation under the graph: click [The poster could have been more clear by saying there is no cause and effect between rising CO2 and rising temperature. But we knew what he meant, since that is what the entire CO2=AGW conjecture is based on].
“There has been no sudden warming that would portend catastrophic climate change coming.” True. The planet is cooling as CO2 steadily rises.
“The understanding of CO2 balance and climate physics itself is low, we do not know that CO2 is a significant climate forcing in real life rather than in physics books.” True again. We have assumptions, and we have the real world. They diverge.
“None of the climate models have any significant predictive capability.” GCMs can’t predict themselves out of a wet paper bag. None of them predicted the past year’s very cold Northern Hemisphere winter. Not a single one of them.
“There may have been recent warming which is easily within the range of historic variability and no evidence that it has been caused by anthropogenic CO2.” Absolutely correct, although I would add “real world” before “evidence,” since the alarmist crowd mistakenly believes that computer models constitute empirical evidence, rather than the biases of those programming them.
“Political motivation behind the AGW Industry to the general public who are otherwise informed only by AGW propaganda which is at times hysterical and patently false.” This is so obvious it needs no commentary. I’ll just point out that the current federal budget allocates over $5 billion to “study” AGW, and only $19 million for studies by skeptical scientists, a preponderance of over 250 – 1. Based on the Scientific Method, skeptical science should be receiving two hundred fifty times more funding than the rent-seeking AGW industry. But science gets turned on its head when politics is involved.
“AGW is nothing more than a weak hypothesis…” The poster is too kind: AGW is either a falsified hypothesis, or a conjecture. Take your pick.
Conclusion: Mandia is ignorant of the science. Or he knows the current state of climate science, and he deliberately misrepresents it for the sake of his AGW agenda. Again, take your pick.
There is no third choice.
Smokey (13:11:59) :
It’s apt that you should point that out. I’ve been getting some email replies to Q’s from the Met Office here in London that make little sense. On the one hand they say c02 doesn’t absorb heat, but intercepts and transfers it, and in the next sentence, say that c02 absorbs heat which keeps the atmosphere warmer than it should be.
The King is dead long live the king.
I don’t want to criticise the Met Office, as there is some world class talent there. They are however, self preserving enough to keep their heads down
Tom P (01:39:06)
I’ve been paying as much attention to the recent warming trend as indeed the hitherto entirely unpredicted cooling trend of even more recent…
Smokey,
Quite something for you to criticise others for “illogical thinking”. Your own consistency in position is not improving.
You criticise me (why, I have no idea) for a “refusal to accept that there is a log response to CO2” and post a link to make your point: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
Now, you state “there is no cause and effect between rising CO2 and rising temperature.”
As you wrote, someone here “is obviously not capable of thinking clearly”.
TomP
I am away and tuning in via a 7 inch screen asus with fading battery so will be very brief.
Interesting letter to Essex-intrigued to see the reply.
Have suggested to EM Smith that he call by and tell you more about the poor datasets from gisstemp.
tonyb
tonyb
Tom P:
“Quite something for you to criticise others for “illogical thinking”.
Quite something to gloss over the fact that Mr Mandia’s illogical thinking was being pointed out. As for my ’cause and effect’ comment, I backed that up with a link that shows there is no measurable cause and effect at current concentrations between CO2 and temperature. If you have a problem with that, argue with Icecap.
To be fair about it, I’ve been consistent in saying there may be a *very* slight effect from CO2. But as the planet makes clear, that minuscule effect is overwhelmed by other factors, therefore it can be safely disregarded.
So, who should we listen to? Planet Earth? Or Al Gore and his followers? Planet Earth is plainly telling us that the warming effect of CO2 is being way overblown by those with an agenda. That CO2/temp R² correlation is effectively zero. I stand by my statement. Read it again, maybe it’s just a comprehension problem.
But like anyone I could be wrong. We all have our faults, don’t we? BTW, how’s that gambling addiction coming along?
Please look into that Nature paper. I find the authors conclusion speculative to say the least and the way this is being reported in the press is even more lop-sided.
I’m waiting to get acces to the full paper to go into this in more detail.
Having done some solid research on a physical proxy they then seem to start to publish lots of “conclusions” with no foundation in fact and surrounded by disclaimer phrases:
“might have been triggered “, “although possibly with some reduction in its volume”, ” 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v.”, “in broad agreement with ”
And finally they turn all this uncertainty and non proof into an apparently unfounded certainty: our results confirm the central role of declining CO2 in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet .
All I can see here is data that establishes CO2 reduction (and a sharp recovery) during the 500,000 year period when the ice cap formed.
The fact that the CO2 then when back up to the pre ice age concentration is simply seen as indicating a “non linear” relationship. Since current models are also non linear they see this a justifying a “broad agreement”.
This looks a lot like twisting the results of thier research to fit the GW mantra (a good gambit for global press coverage and securing futur grants and funding).
I’d be fairly sure you have a subscription to Nature so you can get the paper in full.
Please let me know what you make of it.
I’ve just discovered WUWT and am very impressed. A lot of solid information and sources. Good to see there are still some people in science who know what the word science means.
Best regards, Peter.
Smokey,
It’s still difficult to pin you down: “none” is apt to change to “small” or “some”.
And as for the IceCap plot, they have just chosen the last ten years to calculate the R^2 value, when all the data goes back much further. Why is that? The figure in http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.4600v1 might suggest a reason.
On the gambling front, I’m rather disappointed that only Charles has stepped up to the plate here. But I have had better luck elsewhere and am on for a nice January bonus judging from UAH so far this year.
TonyB,
“Interesting letter to Essex-intrigued to see the reply.”
I’m happy to say that Chis Essex and I are corresponding and there is some convergence. I’ll update once the full level of agreement and/or disagreement is established. In the meantime Roy Spencer looks justified in continuing to publish the UAH data.
Tom P (16:04:51)
That link, as you probably know, is simply a hissy-fit over Viscount Monckton’s analysis. The climate sensitivity number that Arthur gives — a minimum of 1.5° — is way too high, as the planet herself is demonstrating. But thanx for the Monckton publicity, it never hurts: click
Also, you seem desperate to push me into a corner. Won’t work: read my post again. It’s your reading comprehension, me boy. Needs some work [hint: I was quoting].
Finally, you again dodged answering my 13:11:59 post. Are every one of those statements completely false? Because that’s what it would take to prove Mandia right. I just laid out some legitimate points that masonmart had raised. Naturally, you steered clear of them, just like you avoided TonyB’s points @01:27:18.
Alarmists are so predictable. They believe they can not admit to one single fact that any skeptic raises, or they will lose even more of their AGW argument.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly right.