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.
Robert (16:42:03) :
Sorry, no. Nor is AGW a new hypothesis. You are proposing a new hypothesis: that climate scientists are wrong about AGW, the unprecedented warming of the latter twentieth century is somehow being caused by “natural variation.” I question your unsupported hypothesis. Call me skeptical.
A fair point. Too many self-anointed climate change “skeptics” aren’t really skeptics, but disciples of a few notable mouthpieces, who either stand apart from the peer-review process or have failed to gain traction with the mainstream consensus.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. And the claim of a worldwide conspiracy that’s fooled, or corrupted, every prominent scientific organization and journal in the world, with really only fringe dissent, is quite unprecedented.
So yes, there is a massive burden of proof on those asserting this claim.
And that’s why I contend to find the truth, we must debate within the scientific establishment, not against it.
That’s very well put, John. Confirmation bias is something that affects us all. I know it affects me. When I see an article, like Solomon et al recently, that suggests that climate change may not be advancing as fast as has been thought, I often find myself checking disappointment. Which is absurd. Better, if we have a choice, for me to be proven wrong and look silly, than for the most threatening possibilities of global warming to come to pass. I try and discipline my mind by greeting such findings, when they happen, positively, but it isn’t easy by any means!
Robert (07:12:50) :
That’s very well put, John. Confirmation bias is something that affects us all. I know it affects me.
Indeed. Yet, no doubt we disagree on other issues.
My bias is more against those who:
1. exploit any weather-related event as evidence of AGW.
2. assert we need to urgently tax/ration the planet into stability.
3. pile on blindly in support of whatever camp they’ve joined.
4. argue expensive energy or rationing as a morality.
5. deny our current energy model is sustainable.
I also fall into the skeptic’s camp who suspect
1. For whatever reason the Earth has been warming.
2. Am not yet convinced, but open to convincing, that it’s continuing trend.
3. The C02 may play some role, albeit only slight, in forcing the warming.
4. Oceans might be affected, though I’m not sure how.
5. If AGW really is an issue, we’re pretty much buggered.
6. Wind, solar, tidal. Expensive and impotent.
However, I see all research that undermines AGW as good news – so should anyone with a heart – and C02 to be less troubling as a pollutant than the very visible photochemical smog and particulates.
Robert (21:39:42):
“…while I would certainly class you as an “alarmist” and you’re certainly not a ‘skeptic,’…”
Robert me boi, the Devil quotes Scripture and you call me an alarmist. You can classify me any way you like, and you can insist that black is white, down is up, evil is good and unusual cold is caused by global warming. None of it is true, of course.
So. I was right. You’re background is not from the hard sciences. Around here, we can tell a poseur, you know.
OK, I’ll play the Q&A game even if you won’t:
1. Since the question is not quantified, I’ll be lenient and give you a Yes. But the effect is minuscule, and will never lead to a “tipping point.”
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong. Let me reiterate: Wrong.
4. As usual, no rigor. Are the feedbacks positive, or negative? Since you don’t know, I’ll guess you mean positive. In that case, the answer is No. See here. Per the IPCC itself, for every 34 molecules of CO2 emitted, 33 are from natural processes. One molecule of CO2 out of 34 is the result of human activity. You have been spoon fed false information by climate alarmist blogs. Stick around here, and learn the actual facts.
Moving on to the last two questions [see? I answer yours; you hide from mine]:
1. I don’t have a hypothesis. None. I am a scientific skeptic. The alarmist contingent has a hypothesis/conjecture: CO2=CAGW. Unfortunately for them, it has been falsified… by mother Earth herself.
2. The same way we handle the question of alligators under your mother in law’s bed: by following the scientific method.
3. As I previously showed you with a citation: catastrophic AGW is not a “theory.” It is a repeatedly falsified hypothesis/conjecture. But if you still want to believe that “theory” nonsense, it’s OK. Anyone can post here, there’s no censorship like there is on RealClimate. So, to answer your final 3 questions [noting for the record that you refuse to answer any questions yourself]:
1) “Because we can’t think of any alternate explanation, it just has to be due to CO2.” [An Argumentum ad ignorantium, like most AGW explanations.]
2) “We have a consensus of 52 IPCC scientists, all political appointees with their CAGW marching orders, and they can’t be wrong… can they?”
3) The global temperature has increased over the past century, correlating with an increase in a tiny trace gas and postal rates. The correlation with postal rates is a better fit.
I enjoy your questions, Robert, they’re fun and easy to answer. But stick to the humanities, and leave the science explanations to the engineers and physicists.
Around here, when you’re digging yourself a hole, my advice is to quit digging. If you don’t, you’re handing folks an opportunity to have some fun because you’re not up to speed on the subject.
Smokey,
I have a question for you:
So you’re convinced all these organizations (and more) are corrupt to the core and unlike your learned self, are incapable of recognizing the politicizing of bad climate science:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
And you have all the proof you need.
So while you’re on a roll. What else are they wrong about?
[John, I was in the process of responding to your posts when I saw that you had posted a question to me @10:05. I’ll post what I’ve already written, then answer your question below it]:
John Hooper (08:21:11),
I’m in agreement with just about everything you said in that post. Particularly the spending of [at last count] upwards of $50 billion in the U.S. alone on grants to study AGW. When you want pigeons, throw out bird seed. When you want AGW, throw out grants.
However, in your post @02:46:40, you appear to think that scientific skeptics are somehow special, or that people who are skeptics must pass some sort of litmus test to call themselves skeptics.
That is incorrect. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. It is a method, not a title.
I’d like to say a little bit about your list, John:
1. exploit any weather-related event as evidence of AGW.
The trouble with an issue like this is that straw men are all around; there’s always someone saying something grossly stupid just across the fence, who can become an easy proxy for “them.” We would never evaluate the strength of our own arguments by the loons on our own side, of course.
2. assert we need to urgently tax/ration the planet into stability.
Stability, of course, is not an option. It is reasonable to be very concerned, I would argue, when (or, as you might say, if) humans are rapidly changing the climate to one very different from the one humanity has enjoyed through the last 13,000 years of settled existence. The planet is our life support system, and rapidly warming the climate is like someone randomly fiddling with the knobs on your SCUBA when you’re a hundred feet under water. It could be fine. Probably not.
3. pile on blindly in support of whatever camp they’ve joined.
Yes.
4. argue expensive energy or rationing as a morality.
I would agree, if they are using moral suasion to short-circuit discussion of the need or efficacy of such a program, a la won’t-somebody-please-think-of-the-children. On the other hand, we do need to think of the children, as well as all the other people affected by climate change, which does make mitigating it a moral issue, I believe.
5. deny our current energy model is sustainable.
You mean in the sense of limited reserves? I’ve had that argument with my fellow greens until I was — well, green in the face. Peak oil and the like are nonsensical comments. On the other hand, if we burn a significant portion of the fossil fuels left in the ground, the warming is likely to be very dangerous.
I also fall into the skeptic’s camp who suspect
1. For whatever reason the Earth has been warming.
2. Am not yet convinced, but open to convincing, that it’s continuing trend.
What evidence are you looking for? Serious question.
3. The C02 may play some role, albeit only slight, in forcing the warming.
Why only slight? Venus, for example, has an atmosphere that is less than 1% CO2, yet the surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead. The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 was known far in advance of the debate over AGW.*
4. Oceans might be affected, though I’m not sure how.
Well, they’re getting more acidic, for one thing. Sources on request.
5. If AGW really is an issue, we’re pretty much buggered.
Yeah, that could be. To cheer myself up I try to remember that story about Richard Fenyman: How after working on the bomb, he sat in New York and watched people building bridges and skyscrapers and thought they were all wasting their time: it was all going to be nuked in short order. Who would have thought we’d get through sixty years with no more nukes used in anger? Sometimes humanity doesn’t disappoint.
6. Wind, solar, tidal. Expensive and impotent.
Too slow, certainly. Hansen’s new book, Storms of My Grandchildren, which I recommend, comes down strongly in favor of 4th-generation nuclear.
* Which points to how deep the conspiracy among the scientists must go. Climatologists and physicists were faking results on things like the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 for decades prior to the rollout of AGW! Think of the discipline, the planning it required. It all points to the Illuminati, doesn’t it?
Smokey (10:23:09) :
That is incorrect. Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. It is a method, not a title.
Exactly. Which is why I have so much trouble accepting the assertion that all these scientific bodies are somehow blind.
Correction: Venus’ atmosphere is over 95% CO2.
John Hooper (10:05:44) :
I’m not sure what you’re responding to, since you don’t reference a particular comment or post. Where did I say all those organizations are corrupt to the core? You misrepresent me. I never said that. In fact, I’ve never seen that link before, not that its appeal to authority surprises me.
Of course there is plenty of corruption in the climate sciences, as we have seen in the Climategate emails. But most scientists are honest. They are simply being prudent by not speaking their minds – as we can see by the relatively large number of retired scientists who are openly critical of the AGW hypothesis, but who kept quiet while employed. That does not make them corrupt; I doubt you would risk your job by raising a contrary opinion. I wouldn’t either [but being retired now, I can say what I want].
You’ve taken my position a bridge too far. But I do agree that many organizations have been hijacked by pro-AGW activists, as Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT also points out.
I was the elected CFO [treasurer] of a large statewide organization, and I’ve seen first hand how easily an organization can be hijacked by even one activist. In fact, it is incredibly easy once one becomes knowledgeable about the bylaws, committees and subcommittees, key players, how motions can be structured to reach a predetermined agenda over time, and Roberts Rules of Order.
Once one or more influential activists are in place, it is easy to get other activists appointed to key positions. In fact many organizations, particularly those with unpaid volunteers serving on committees, often have a hard time finding enough willing members to fill all the positions. So an activist can often simply step into a vacant position.
And if the head of the organization is in agreement with an activist’s agenda, nothing can stop the propaganda push. Every organization keeps its membership contact list confidential for a number of reasons. But its committees and the governing board have access.
This problem has been discussed repeatedly here at WUWT. Dr Lindzen also points out the problem here.
The system has been gamed. As has been repeatedly pointed out here, the honest way to determine the views regarding AGW of the rank-and-file members in an organization [as opposed to the handful on the governing board] is to have each side [pro-AGW and skeptical scientists] appoint an equal number to an ad-hoc committee, with a remit to formulate the questions that will be sent out, in a secret ballot format, to the dues paying membership. Only those questions that contain mutually agreed language would be allowed. That way, the true views of the membership will be made clear.
But this is never done. Why not? Because those activists intend to use their position to speak in the name of the entire membership. Saul Alinsky explained the method in his Rules for Radicals.
It is surprisingly easy to redirect a professional organization, such as the APS, toward a particular agenda. The membership is interested in furthering the professional society, not in political advocacy. But the members do not have access to contact information, making it very difficult to organize in opposition to the board taking a pro-AGW position. And to most, it is simply a minor irritant that their journal uncritically endorses AGW; for the average member it is not worth the trouble of fighting a war with the society. It is easier to simply cancel their membership if they are in disagreement.
Also, almost every charitable foundation that has been in existence for more than twenty five years also funds AGW grants – but not grants to AGW skeptics – even though AGW was generally unknown 25 years or more ago when the foundation was set up. Foundations are, if anything, easier to hijack than professional organizations, because votes are traded: each trustee has their own funding interest, and all it takes is one from, e.g., the Grantham Foundation, to fund large AGW grants.
And the religious orders that are listed in your link are even easier to hijack. They are concerned with faith, not science. I challenge anyone to find a mainstream religion that promotes the skeptical scientific method over AGW.
The human nature of groups [as opposed to individuals] is easy to game. The methods have been known for quite a long time. The old Soviet Union made a continuous study of the nature of democratic organizations, as the Venona papers showed. Adam Smith, in his 1775 Wealth of Nations, pointed out that as soon as two shopkeepers get together, they begin to form a conspiracy to raise prices.
Anyone who believes that AGW isn’t primarily about massive tax increases and the growth of government is, to put it mildly, ignorant. There are, of course, well meaning people who sincerely believe in catastrophic AGW.
But make no mistake: the main driver of AGW is money and increased government bureaucracy and control. And the truly corrupt UN is salivating like ravenous hyenas at the prospect of its proposed annual .7% of GDP “World Tax” to ‘fight the effects of climate change.’
Naturally the tax would be paid by only the G-8 countries, into the opaque and unaccountable UN [staffed 99.9% by Pachauri-like creatures], and the fraction that emerged would be paid out to the other 184 countries – including “developing countries” like Russia, China, Brazil and India.
Does it need to be pointed out that there are always effects from climate change and there always have been, and that CO2 induced catastrophic AGW is completely unproven?
I notice that you’ve posted another follow-up comment, so I will post this, and answer any questions you may have. But I won’t argue [not that you’ve been argumentative], because this thread is stale, and I’m going to move on to the current articles.
Smokey still can’t answer the questions. Sad:
“I enjoy your questions, Robert, they’re fun and easy to answer.”
Yet you didn’t. You again failed to answer any of the “skeptic’s question,” trying to weasel out of them with various non sequiturs and quickly returning to ad hominem and arguments from authority:
“But stick to the humanities, and leave the science explanations to the engineers and physicists.”
Again, assuming that I don’t have a scientific background, because you wish it were true. Now implicitly claiming you have a scientific background, despite your failure to understand simple scientific and statistical concepts like the null hypothesis or parsimony (and here’s a pro tip for you when you’re impersonating someone with a science background: no one in the business calls parsimony “Occam’s razor.”
You’re no skeptic, Smokey. You’re a true believer, and fervent follower of a political movement attempting to discredit working scientists. You fail every test of the skeptic. You aren’t able to articulate the opposing position; you aren’t able to consider evidence that challenges your view; you aren’t able to imagine what the world would be like or what you would do if you were wrong. And you justify this ludicrously anti-science and flat-out irrational faith-based system with a complete misunderstanding of how science works.
You and your activist heroes (how ironic that you deride supposed activism by climate scientists when the anti-AGW believers’ spokepeople consist of virtually nothing else!) need to calm down and learn some basic intellectual honesty before there’s any hope of reaching you with rational thought.
I hope you do register there. There are hundreds of bets on many topics available (mostly politics-related).
At 66%, the bet on “Will 2010 be one of the five warmest years on record?” would return 50% a year if it pays off. (I.e., put down $2, get back $3.)
All the previous top-5 years are in the past decade, IIRC; 2009 was the 2nd warmest; January 2010 is setting a record and so is Feb. so far; and the hiatus since 2002 in the rising trend suggests that there is pent-up heat in the pipeline; so from a warmist’s perspective it’s very likely — say 87.5%, or 7/8, that this bet will be a winner. Here’s how a warmist should figure his expected return, allowing for a loss 1 time in 8:
7 bets of $2 = $14 + payoff of $7 = $21
1 bet of $2 a loss;
net payoff after 8 bets = $7 – $2 = $5
average payoff per $2 bet = $5 payoff / 8 bets = .62 cents
Expected return per $1 = .31 cents, or 31%
The odds on this bet have risen to 69%; people are realizing that it is a bargain. So the expected return (from a warmist’s perspective) is less, a bit under 30% now. But that’s a great expectation, so it’s still a good buy for him at odds of under 80% or so.
(BTW, a bettor doesn’t have to buy at the current odds %age. He can place a “bid” below the market price that will be executed only if the odds move in his direction.)
The real issue is how do we address the consequences of GW? Clearly GW exists and has in the past. Whether or not it is AGW or just plain old GW doesn’t matter. We are not going to stop and reverse it. The effort must be to destermine when and how much seas will rise and the consequences and then prepare. Those folks so caught up in AGW just want more government control
over our lives to try to reduce this great country to a basket case of global equality.
Dear Anthony (above),
At this time-depth, the control over isostatic effects really need to be very, very strict (less than 0.005 mm error in uplift or subsidence [est.]/y would seem to be req.). Are the controls really that strict (is this why morphological evidence from the Eemian always seems a bit elevated?)? Sea-level studies are notoriously hard, esp. with respect to acheiving close controls isostatic effects (e.g., see Ian Shennan papers in QSR). Certainly though, the paper achieves a better standard than the more recent (ASU) Overpeck work (that puts Eamian-style sea-level responses in the context of Holocene-style climate changes), the latter should have avoided the clique, listened to his father, and stuck with aeolian stuff! Anyway, the greater the time-depth, the greater the potential error.
Bruce
Sorry, Eemian, not Eamian the second time (cf. MIS 5e esp.). Also “…controls OVER isostatic…”).
Luboš Motl and several others here appear to think that this interesting paper supports their position. I would at least consider the contrary argument, that this paper suggest that the climate system is very sensitive to greenhouse gases.
Compare 80000 with 10000 years ago. The insolation levels at 60N is similar in both period. This new paper demonstrates that the sea-levels are similar, hence global ice volume must be similar, but the temperature over Greenland and Antarctica was much colder 80000 years ago. Why? One obvious difference in forcing factors between the two periods is that Holocene CO2 concentrations were much higher.