This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 327, Issue 5967, Food Security dated February 12 2010, is now available at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol327/issue5967/twis.dtl
Standing High (requires free registration to view)
Excerpts:
Abstract:
Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca
Jeffrey A. Dorale,1,* Bogdan P. Onac,2,* Joan J. Fornós,3 Joaquin Ginés,3 Angel Ginés,3 Paola Tuccimei,4 David W. Peate1
1 Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, 121 Trowbridge Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
2 Department of Geology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA 528, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; and Department of Geology, Babes-Bolyai University, Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology Cluj, Romania.
3 Departament de Ciències de la Terra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Carretera Valldemossa km 7.5, Palma de Mallorca, 07122, Spain.
4 Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Università di Roma III, Largo St. Leonardo Murialdo, 1, 00146 Roma, Italy.
…
Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower.
…
, Bermuda [Ber (23, 24)], Grand Cayman [GC (25)], and Mallorca [Mal (1)]. (C) Sea-level reconstruction for Mallorca. Elevations and U/Th ages of encrusted speleothems throughout MIS 5 and at the onset of MIS 4 are shown (ages and 2{sigma} error bars are color-coded by sample; blue-colored ages are obtained from earlier studies (10). (D) The reconstructed ocean water {delta}18O, scaled as sea level (29). (E) 60°N June insolation (27). The vertical yellow bar denotes the timing of peak MIS 5a sea level recorded at Mallorca and shows a good correlation with 60°N June insolation and the reconstructed ocean water {delta}18O scaled as sea level."]”]
…
We therefore consider the simple interpretation of our data that eustatic sea level during MIS 5a stood around +1 m relative to present sea level, implying less ice on Earth 81,000 years ago than today. Although this interpretation conflicts with the generally accepted eustatic sea-level curve based on the far-field sites of Barbados and New Guinea, it is consistent with a number of other estimates from around the world, including those from the Bahamas, the U.S. Atlantic Coastal Plain, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and California (4, 6, 22–26) (Fig. 2B). We considered the simple fact that this geographically diverse suite of sites spans a wide range of presumed isostatic states, yet the suite consistently indicates a late MIS 5a highstand of ~ +0 to 3 m (Fig. 2B). Bermuda and Mallorca, for example, are both tectonically stable, and both have MIS 5e/5a estimates of 2 to 3 and 1 to 2 m above modern sea level, respectively; whereas MIS 5e/5a estimates from Barbados are ~ +5 m and ~ –18 m (2). Any appeal to GIA to account for these discrepancies must somehow take into account the unlikely outcome that different ice centers on different continents (Laurentide versus Fennoscandian) would generate the virtually identical MIS 5e/5a relative sea-level histories of tectonically stable Bermuda and Mallorca. The very rapid onset and relatively brief nature of the MIS 5a highstand may have plausibly generated lags between the timing of sea-level changes and the timing of coral reef growth, and may provide a partial explanation as to why reefs on Barbados and New Guinea do not record a comparable eustatic height for this event. This and other factors that could be part of the apparent discrepancy are discussed in (9).
============
h/t to WUWT reader David Hagen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Adam from Kansas (18:17:52) :
davidmhoffer: That is strange to see the SST’s go up like that, because both Unisys and NOAA seem to not be showing such a sharp rise in their anomaly maps in comparison to several days ago.
Exactly where in the oceans is causing the big rise, because I can’t find it in the anomaly maps?>
I’m only looking at AMSU-A so I can’t answer your question, and I wouldn’t be qualified to in any event. That said I’m sorta surprised that some climalarmist hasn’t started screaming that we just hit the tipping point based on just that small part of the graph as it really stands out. I notice that there is a gap in the data entirely for a few days just before that and have just started wondering if the sensor was off line for a while due to some problem that is affecting current results.
On the other hand wouldn’t it be hilarious if it went up to say… I don’t know… number at random…. 3.7 Watts/m2 with all the other channels still trending down? CO2 MIA?
way o/t
u.s. budget 3.8 trillion.
if the $1 bills were lined up end to end, a photon of light (yes, in a vacuum) would take 32 minutes to cover the distance. correct?
Quote: Oliver Jack (17:58:14) :
“Sorry, Oliver Manuel, but George Bush was the token global warming denier out of the sorry group you list.”
I agree, Jack, that George Bush was the “token global warming denier”.
George Bush also took the advice of NAS President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, in 2001 in formulating the US policy toward global climate change.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
I must say I just finish watching the Lamberton Mockton Debate on Climate in Autrailia. Their was no contest Mocton overwhelmed Lamberton. I am sure the alarmists were not happy. Sincerely John.
janama (17:19:57) :
I’ve contacted the SMH Online dept and The Sydney Morning Herald will be streaming the Monckton/Lambert debate live at 12.30 Sydney time.
——-
Thanks so much for the link in your post – I followed it up and caught most of the debate. It was brilliant. Kudos to Tim Lambert for agreeing to battle Lord Monckton, but Monckton swept Lambert away. Amazing how often Lambert was appealing to authority and the huge ranks of climate scientists in concensus. A question, though. Monckton at one point referred to a theory that the El Nino is precipitated by undersea volcanic activity in the western Pacific. This one is new to me. WUWT?
I
For last 1.5+ hrs I was watching debate Moncton vs Lambert in Sydney
Two points.
1. I’m speachless
2. I feel sorry,…. no, I feel very sorry, no, I feel extremly very sorry for Lambert
Boys & Girls:
I’m not a warmist.
Just know that where I live several winter storms can wipe out a foredune and entie cliffs are casued to collapse, not to mention what goes on below the surface. Now in a far off cave the water level has been measured to move upward at a rate of 0.00123456 meters per century.
I’ll wait a bit longer to accept this a face value.
This info might not be “rock solid” black sea, tectonic activity,validity of the sampling. many things can be put in questions.
Maybe a trap to let the less cautious “deniers” get in and then publish a “rock solid” refutation?
Don’t worry, in three years time, pro-AGW scientists will go down there to produce their own tests and refute this finding or cast doubt on it. And so it goes ..
The report on the research is good, the conclusions look like B.S. (bad science) to me. After 3 readings I see to many loose ends or poor assumptions. The idea that the area in question has been elevation stable over the time period is very hard to accept. That said, There is evidence from all over the world that the oceans water level rises and lowers up to 3 feet on a requalar bases
Sorry to go completely off topic folks…
But I just need a peaceful haven for two minutes where I can scream at the top of my lungs and get it out of my system…
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!! I am SO SICK of these AGW dogmatic freaks in the online forums !!! I can’t take it any more !!! There’s no rationale and reasoning with these robots, they are so bloody brain-washed !!! All they do is twist everything into circular semantics !!!
Okay.
I think I’m okay now.
I needed that.
Sorry… thank god for this sanctuary (I’m not bloody kidding). The rest of the internet is nuts, they are all blooming nuts !
I’m so very very grateful for these skeptic blogs, you have no idea !
I think I have to just simply stay away from all of the forums, these people are completely hopeless.
Okay, I’m going to go back to WUWT’s home page, read some refreshing posts and claw my way back to sanity.
Thank you for allowing me to vent.
/rant
Or was Mallorca a meter lower?
Caution!
If I understand correctly, the following have been considered “facts”:
A. ~17,000 years ago the oceans reached a minimum level of ~120 meters below present, marking the depth of the Ice Age.
B. Sometime since that low, as it rose to its present level, it broke through the Strait(s) of Gibraltar and brought the Mediterranean up to “Sea Level” in a relatively short period of time (swallowing ancient cities).
C. Sometime later the same occurred through the Bosporus, flooding cities (towns?) with a sudden rise of the Black Sea (giving rise to the Noah Flood/Ark Legend).
(B. & C. were unique to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.)
D. ~85,000 years ago, during the long descent into the depth of the last major ice age the “average” world sea level rose for a few thousand years to only ~30 meters below present. (There were many somewhat smaller deviations in the 100,000+ year descent.)
E. ~82,000 years ago, the “sea level” rose to ~ 18 meters below present as measured at the Huon Peninsula of New Guinea.
Perhaps during that rise during the long descent into the depths of the ice age, the Mediterranean was still connected to the “Atlantic”? Or perhaps it was on its own already and was fed by rivers, glaciers, or… Or was the land level changing?
In any case, throughout the last 100,000 years, the sea level has been up and down significantly, over the short and long term. We may or may not live to see anything dramatic.
But the “publish or perish” mandate combined with please your superior in the academic hierarchy combined with a proliferation of Enviro-
Cult religious pressures, unethical ethicists, lawyers, (some of whom are politicians), and “academic” scientists who never check or understand the instrumentation and its limitations, which is giving them the data they massage to make the “truth”. And the journalists never did get science right, even back in the 40’s and 50’s.
I hope this doesn’t upset people I’d rather not upset.
I agree with Nick. The most sensible explanation is geology. Mallorca could have been lower. This doesn’t really prove much about the global sea levels, especially when we’re talking just about one meter. Sea levels were changing by 100 meters during tens of millennia, anyway, so why would suddenly we talk about this amazing 1-meter accuracy?
Just that the result goes in the “convenient way” for us doesn’t mean that it’s correct to correlate it with the climate. That would be the same distortion as the climate doomsday prophets are doing all the time, just with the opposite sign.
janama (17:19:57) :
A question, though. Monckton at one point referred to a theory that the El Nino is precipitated by undersea volcanic activity in the western Pacific. This one is new to me.
I think it has been discussed by Joe D’Aleo.
The Indian Ocean warm pool can feed warm water through the relatively shallow and tectonically active Indonesian islands into the west Pacific.
What is really interesting is that there is apparently very little difference between the MIS 5a and 5e sea-levels, only a meter or two. This is in good agreement with results from tectonically stable far-field areas like Australia and makes claims for sea-levels of 6 or even 9 meters during MIS 5e even more dubious than they were before.
This is important since claims for “runaway” sea-levels as a result of even moderate warming are largely based on the presumed high seal levels during the last interglacial.
John Egan (16:12:53) :
“I am simply asking.
Given the tectonic activity of the Mediterranean region –
I would have to see convincing evidence that this was not due to uplift.
As a structural geologist I can only agree with you.
I can’t find the paragraph that describes how Neanderthal SUVs brought about Neanderthal extinction. Shome mishtake shurley?
This doesn’t show that seeohtwo does or doesn’t play a role in warming, it merely shows that natural forcing factors are sufficiently strong to modulate temperatures in a manner consistent with amplitudes of temperature fluctuation seenin the past 250 years……
NickB. (16:30:54) :
Just thinking out loud here, but isn’t there a theory floating around that up until the last 10,000 years or so the Black Sea was land locked and then flooded? I wonder how much that might have affected sea levels… would be interesting if it worked out to be about a meter(?)
—
I know that theory and I often wonder about the water from the Danube, Dnieper, Dnister etc and what happened to it before the land dam broke, the Black has salinity roughly half that of the Atlantic etc. Suggesting an outflow of water.
So the question is where did it (the water) go before the Black Sea was connected to the Med? One of these days I’ll get round to calculating how long it took (would take) to fill a blocked off Black Sea with all that fresh water.
The mediteranean is a very special case and warrants a study subject of its own. It is tektonically very active and therefore not an ideal location from which to make definitive measurements. Never the less it is a reasonble piece of science with no notable biases.
Re Monckton vs Lambert.
I think there’s been a little abuse of observing the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.
It’s perfectly acceptable to refer to peer-reviewed literature endorsed by multiple bodies of science to support your case.
It’s what’s done routinely in court. It’s done routinely in the press.
As such, referring to the studies of an expert witness would normally trump referring to the studies of an witness with dubious credibility.
Without such “authorities” Monckton too would be without a case. It’s not like he does his own research. He merely collates (cherry-picks) contrarian studies that support his position.
I’m not saying this validates AGW but of course it strengthens the case. Pretending otherwise truly is denial.
If you notice, we are now in the process of trying to discredit the authority (IPCC, CRU, NOAA, ETC). And there’s been a couple of wins. But really, this subject will not go forward with any credibility until these authorities line up with us. Forget about thinking otherwise, science always finds its way to the truth.
I suggest that you challenge them to make a bet. (Conclude your challenge with “puck/puck/puck” to encourage them to get cracking.)
There are three bets they can make on how warm 2010 will be (based on GISStemp’s online figures), at the well-known, Dublin-based event prediction site https://www.intrade.com (Click on Markets → Climate & Weather → Global Temperature). They are:
Will 2010 be THE warmest year on record? (32% chance)
Will 2010 be warmer than 2009? (31% chance)
Will 2010 be one of the five warmest years on record? (66% chance)
At least three noted warmists have given a “better than likely” estimate of the first question (and thus the second by implication, because 209 was close to being the warmest), and from that I infer that they are virtually certain that 2010 will not be noticeably cooler than recent years (the third question). Since the odds automatically adjust as punters place their bets on one side or the other, they and their followers seem not to have backed up their opinions with cash. The skeptics seem to be more willing to put their money where their mouth is.
There are also six other bets on future global temperature as well, having to do with the temperatures in the years 2011 through 2019. These haven’t yet attracted any betting and only a few bids and offers, so the odds are a guess. But a bettor can make a bid or offer he thinks is reasonable and wait for someone to take him up on it.
It’s a bit of a hassle to get registered, learn the bidding process, figure out how to navigate the site, etc. but it’s much more practical than trying to arrange a one-on-one bet with a distant, antagonistic stranger. (Other problems: who will hold the bet? Who will adjudicate disputes? What if one bettor wants to bet on one of the nine propositions mentioned above and the other wants to bet on another?) And Intrade has the advantage of allowing a bettor to exit his bet if he changes his mind or there’s an emergency, or if he thinks the odds have become unreasonably biased in his favor so that the bet is no longer attractive (rational).
Wow, Science Magazine printing an article on climate which is 180 degrees off message – looks like ‘cover your arse’ syndrome to me!
Oliver K. Manuel (17:13:04) :
“Have they finally found some integrity?”
No. Science is running scared.
What will happen if decades of filth beneath the climategate iceberg come floating to the surface?“
I think it more a case of when rather than if.
The way ‘science always finds its way to the truth’ is buy inviting and sincerely confronting the criticism of those who disagree with the established view. Science, as a social institution, is conjecture plus organised attempts at refutation by sceptics.