I recall a conversation I had with Dr. Bob Carter at a restaurant in Townsville, QLD after our public presentations there in June 2010 where he lamented the fact that many of the AGW proponents and many of his critics, “really don’t integrate the earth’s geologic timeline into their critical thinking”. I’ve had dozens of similar comments posted on WUWT. It only takes one look at this graph from Lorraine Lisiecki’s most recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters to get a handle on the geologic timeline of CO2 in recent Earth history. The title and x axis annotations are mine. Compare the peaks of CO2 and Sea Surface Temperature change over the last 1.5 million years.
Figure 3. Proxy comparison. (top) pCO2 (red) [Petit et al., 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Siegenthaler et al., 2005; Lüthi et al., 2008 , Dd13CP−NA 2 (blue), alkenone concentration (green dashed) [Martínez‐Garcia et al., 2009″], boron‐based estimates with error bars (black dots [Hönisch et al., 2009]; gray circles [Tripati et al., 2009]; triangles [Seki et al., 2010]), and alkenone d13C estimates (squares) [Seki et al., 2010]. Dd13CP−NA 2 and alkenone proxies are scaled to ppm using the mean and standard deviation of pCO2 from 800–0 ka. (See auxiliary material for ODP 1090 age model.) (bottom) Changes in Dd13CP−NA 2 (blue), WEP SST [Medina‐Elizalde and Lea, 2005], and a tropical SST stack (purple) [Herbert et al., 2010] with trend reduced by 0.29°C/Myr to match the WEP. Dd13CP−NA 2 is scaled to °C using the standard deviation of the SST stack from 500–100 ka. – click for larger image”]
Granted, there’s not enough resolution on this graph to see the present (at far left) clearly, and I’m sure there will be arguments complaining it doesn’t show the current measured CO2 ppm value, at ~390ppm, but I’m not posting this to try to dispel current measurements, only to help others gain an understanding of the longer geologic record. Here’s the abstract and conclusion, along with another graph of interest:
Abstract: (emphasis mine)
A high‐resolution marine proxy for atmospheric pCO2 is needed to clarify the phase lag between pCO2 and marine climate proxies and to provide a record of orbital‐scale
pCO2 variations before the oldest ice core measurement at 800 ka. Benthic d13C data should record deep ocean carbon storage and, thus, atmospheric pCO2. This study finds that a modified d13C gradient between the deep Pacific and intermediate North Atlantic (Dd13CP−NA2) correlates well with pCO2. Dd13CP−NA 2 reproduces characteristic differences between pCO2 and ice volume during Late Pleistocene glaciations and indicates that pCO2 usually leads terminations by 0.2–3.7 kyr but lags by 3–10 kyr during two “failed” terminations at 535 and 745 ka. Dd13CP−NA 2 gradually transitions from 41‐ to 100‐kyr cyclicity from 1.3–0.7 Ma but has no secular trend in mean or amplitude since 1.5 Ma. The minimum pCO2 of the last 1.5 Myr is estimated to be 155 ppm at ∼920 ka. Citation: Lisiecki, L. E. (2010), A benthic d13C based proxy for atmospheric pCO2 over the last 1.5 Myr, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L21708, doi:10.1029/2010GL045109.
That minimum pCO2 920,000 years ago of 155ppm comes dangerously close to the value at which photosynthetic function shuts down, said to be around 140-150ppm. Earth came close to losing its plant life then.
Here’s another graph, again annotated by me, showing her data:
Figure 2. Comparison of pCO2 (gray) [Petit et al., 1999; Monnin et al., 2001; Siegenthaler et al., 2005; Lüthi et al., 2008 with (top) benthic d18O (black) [Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005 and (bottom) Dd13CP−NA 2 (black). Glacial stages are labeled by MIS number. In Figure 2 (bottom), pCO2 has been smoothed with a 2‐kyr boxcar filter.
I also found this passage of interest:
An anomalous phase relationship between ice volume and pCO2 may explain why these two warming events [Termination 6 (535 ka) and MIS 18 (745 ka)] are weaker than most Late Pleistocene terminations. During both “failed” terminations, the initial d18O change is approximately half the amplitude of most Late Pleistocene terminations; d18O spends ∼20 kyr at intermediate values of 3.8–4.2‰ and then briefly returns to more glacial values before achieving full interglacial conditions ∼40 kyr after the initial warming. The Dd13CP−NA2 lag during these two failed terminations suggests that full deglaciation requires an early pCO2 response.
This is along the lines of Andrew Lacis CO2 knob idea, but it is clear that CO2 isn’t fully in control, but one of many control knobs for climate. There’s also some discussions about the role of polar ice in climate regulation:
The initial trigger for terminations and the mechanistic link between pCO2 and northern hemisphere ice volume remain controversial [e.g., Huybers, 2009; Denton et al., 2010]. Variability in the phase between d18O and Dd13CP−NA2 supports the hypothesis of Toggweiler [2008] that glacial changes in pCO2 are controlled by southern hemisphere processes only weakly linked to northern hemisphere insolation and ice volume. However, tighter coupling between the hemispheres appears to develop at ∼500 ka, as suggested by smaller phase differences between Dd13CP−NA 2 and d18O (Table S3), an increase in pCO2 amplitude, and the phase lock between Antarctic temperature and northern hemisphere insolation during the last five terminations [Kawamura et al., 2007].
Conclusions
[19] In conclusion, Dd13CP−NA2 correlates well with ice core pCO2 from 800–0 ka and reproduces many features of the pCO2 record. Comparison of Dd13CP−NA
2 and pCO2 suggests that marine and ice core age models [Lisiecki and Raymo,
2005; Parrenin et al., 2007; Loulergue et al., 2007] differ by ≤2.7 kyr at terminations. Within the marine sedimentary record Dd13CP−NA2 usually leads d18O by 0.2–3.7 kyr at terminations but lags by 3–10 kyr during “failed” terminations at 535 and 745 ka. Thus, an early pCO2 response appears necessary for complete deglaciation, and pCO2 appears less tightly coupled to northern hemisphere ice volume before 500 ka. [20] Several proxies that correlate with pCO2 (Dd13CP−NA2 , South Atlantic productivity [Martínez‐Garcia et al., 2009], and WEP SST [Medina‐Elizalde and Lea, 2005]) and a carbon
cycle box model [Köhler and Bintanja, 2008] suggest that glacial pCO2 minima do not decrease during the MPT. Moreover, the minimum pCO2 concentration of the last
1.5 Myr is estimated to occur at 920 ka. Dd13CP−NA2 gradually shifts from 41‐kyr cycles to 100‐kyr cycles from 1.3–0.7 Ma but shows no secular trend in mean or amplitude over the last 1.5 Myr, whereas tropical SST records suggest warmer glacial maxima before 1.3 Ma [Herbert et al., 2010]. This likely indicates that at least one of these proxies is affected by factors other than pCO2 before 1.3 Ma; thus, additional high resolution proxies are needed.
======================================================
The thing to bear in mind is that these are proxies, not empirical measurements, and there’s no error/uncertainty shown. Of course at the present, we have ~ 390ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is nothing I dispute, not does any other skeptic I know of. What is clear from this study though is that our current period of increased CO2 is riding on the back of natural variability of CO2 concentration, which has been observed to occur with regularity over the past 1.5 million years. Of course the question arises as to how much the present concentrations will affect our slide into the next glaciation, if at all. If we are lucky, our “geoengineering” of the planet with some extra CO2 may very well be a lucky break for humanity. Notice that those peaks in CO2 and SST, the most recent of which is the very brief period of the rise of man, are quite short compared with the much longer periods of cooler temperatures.
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who has the full paper here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===============
******
That minimum pCO2 920,000 years ago of 155ppm comes dangerously close to the value at which photosynthetic function shuts down, said to be around 140-150ppm. Earth came close to losing its plant life then.
******
W/o looking up the numbers, C3-type chlorophyll plants might be beyond their limit, but C4-type (grasses) would be OK down to lower amounts.
Still, 140-ppm CO2 would prb’ly be a killer for an agricultural-based civilization.
Our geoengineering experiment will cause rapid changes in climate that will be hard for us to adjust to. If we were smart we’d leave the carbon in the ground. 19,000 years from now we may wish to dig it and burn it to prevent the next ice age. But see this for a more realistic discussion: http://www.technologyreview.com/article/24117/
“The thing to bear in mind is that these are proxies, not empirical measurements, ”
You mean so say proxy measurements are not direct measurements of temperature or CO2. They are still empirical.
Ice core CO2 values may be too low based on fossil plant stomata.
See: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
Anthony, another outstanding post. Two things you said I find particularly interesting:
“…but it is clear that CO2 isn’t fully in control, but one of many control knobs for climate.”
I don’t think any qualified climate scientist would disagree with this, but many sceptics might not want to give CO2 any control at all.
You also said:
“If we are lucky, our “geoengineering” of the planet with some extra CO2 may very well be a lucky break for humanity…”
____
Indeed, IF we are lucky, but luck is associated with gambling, and so, the other side of the toss of the coin must be asked, and is the whole thrust of much of the honest efforts to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels…What if we are UN-lucky, and the climate is very sensitive to the sharp spike in CO2 that we’ve seen over the past 300 or so years? As you know, I am not currently a believer in Catastrophic AGW, but certainly I do believe it is more likely than not that our tuning of the one control knob of the climate control of CO2 so that the current levels go right off the nice chart you give above is a reason for caution and is already likely showing its effects on climate. Do we really want to take the gamble that sending the CO2 levels off the long term chart by our use of fossil fuels will be harmless or simply forestall the next glaciation? This is certainly not prudent. Reducing our addiction to fossil fuels is prudent on many levels, and in my mind, the only real question is how to reduce them in a manner that spreads out the cost of this reduction in an economically equitable way between the wealthy and poor countries of today while preserving a viable planet (for human habitation) for tomorrow.
Mike says:
November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am
Our geoengineering experiment will cause rapid changes in climate that will be hard for us to adjust to. If we were smart we’d leave the carbon in the ground.
That’s one opinion, certainly. I am of the opinion that we are better placed now than at any time in human history to adapt to the natural climatic changes that are happening and have always happened and always will happen. Technology is a wonderful thing. And if you think it would be “smart” (to use the Americanism) or clever to “leave the carbon in the ground,” then what do you think would be the answer to the energy problem that would result? Maybe you think we should go back to a pre-industrial-age existence. Yep. That would be very “smart.” Whatever you or I think, it’s purely academic, cos it’s never gonna happen.
I checked the current CO2 value related to the post, I’d assumed we would be seeing reduced levels due to the recession. Mauna Loa monthly value is above ˜390 ppm.
Note: I’m not questioning NOAA’s integrity but is it logical to place a CO2 monitoring observatory near a volcano?
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Measurements are adjusted to account for local degassing of CO2 from the nearby volcano.
Monthly Mean CO2 Data:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Note: most recent eruption occurred from 24 March 1984 to 15 April 1984
# decimal average interpolated trend #days
# date (season corr)
1984 1 1984.042 343.87 343.87 343.94 31
1984 2 1984.125 344.59 344.59 344.00 29
1984 3 1984.208 345.29 345.29 343.77 23
1984 4 1984.292 -99.99 346.58 343.98 2
1984 5 1984.375 347.36 347.36 344.19 27
1984 6 1984.458 346.80 346.80 344.33 25
Given that temperature drives CO2 and given the observatory location related to ENSO changes, isn’t it a bit odd the CO2 record from 1958-present has nearly always risen?
CO2 at 155 ppm was low enough that the most common C3 bushes and trees would have a very hard time growing. The globe was probably nearly completely C4 grass-covered with sparse forests in the high precipitation rain-forest areas only. [That should also say something about what the animals were eating at the time as well].
I don’t have this latest data from Lisiecki as it is doesn’t appear to be available yet (but have others and she does a lot of really great work on the paleoclimate).
Just wanted to show Temp and CO2 on a comparable basis (going back 800,000 years) because CO2 only changes a small amount compared to the temperature (something which is not always clear in these type of charts or in Al Gore’s movie for example). Lowest CO2 in the period 172 ppm at 667,000 years ago versus the 155 ppm at 920,000 years ago quoted above.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5052/last800k.png
Mike, be smart and freeze during the next winter, so our ancestors after 19,000 years can heat their stoves.
Mike says:
November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am
Mike,
That’s what you call a more realistic discussion? And why 19,000 years from now? Where is the evidence that the next ice age will occur 19,000 years from the present? How about discussing the paper rather than just repeating the same old “precautionary principle” crapola.
I my opinion, those who are most vocally calling for a return to pre-industrial usage of carbon-based fuels are those who are least likely to survive if we do so.
There will be huge population crashes in cities if that were to occur. By population crashes, I mean lots and lots of people will die. It will not be pretty and just to survive people will have to kill other people who are trying to take away their means of survival.
Perhaps those in the UK will get a foretaste of what it means to be without energy this coming winter (since they have rushed headlong down the path of alternative energy bullshit) … let’s see how much they like it.
This is probably a very silly idea but nothing ventured nothing gained.
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru (most of South America) went from having a majority of their populations living in rural areas, to a majority living in urban areas, within the last 60 years (1950-2010).
Are the daily CO2 readings and trends at Mauna Loa related to Industrialization, Urbanization, and environmental conditions in South America?
Someone needs to match up the actual fossil records of that age with the 155ppm CO2 levels — see if what is reflected in terms of diversity, type, animal life, etc. If that’s possible…
*****
Mike says:
November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am
*****
We need to keep burning fossil fuels until we can get nuclear on line, but study if black carbon can be used to keep the albedo down during the next ice age.
RGates:
“Indeed, IF we are lucky, but luck is associated with gambling, and so, the other side of the toss of the coin must be asked, and is the whole thrust of much of the honest efforts to reduce our addiction to fossil fuels…”
+++++++++
That comment is the much abused precautionary principle in a dress with lipstick. As is frequently posted here at WUWT, caution works both ways. That people are now wondering and watching what happens because of possible unexpected consequences of increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere is good. It already happened, so there is little use cryin about spilt milk. What is so galling is that certain folks want to dominate the discussion with their own, rapidly generated, post-facto qualified opinions, and on balance, poorly-informed opinions at that. The people best qualified to speak on the subject of climate and CO2 are not environmentalists or politicians, they are geologists who have routinely studied these sorts of things. I personally know several geologists and not one of them finds the present climate alarming, and further, they find the prognostications of climate models childish. I was surprised by this because I did not expect them to stand out, as a group, from the AGW social trend, given the contrived consequences they might be made to suffer.
People use oil because it is a very good fuel and we have developed many technolgies that use it efficiently. That is not wrong. It is a good idea, actually. Oil may well be a renewable resource formed in the ‘factory’ of the earth’s mantle from ingredients we know are there, at pressures we know exist, and temperatures which are extant. We reproduce the process on the surface so it is not a mystery. It is a hot research field.
Coal is in a different category because it is not being formed at present and will probably peak in 2070 (Willem Nel 2008). Within 60 years we will have to find a supplement for oil, wind and solar. The latter two are expensive at present. Present technologies do not respond well to scaling in terms of cost. So what to do? There is no rush, that’s for sure. Every year major advances are made in materials research which will underlie truly viable solar technologies and geothermal power. That’s fine. Keep your shirt on. Solar cells may coon reach +60% efficiency (development announced last week).
The poor temperature response of the atmosphere to increased CO2 is an inescapable fact. Arguments that look for ‘tipping points’ are invalid. There are no tipping points that anyone can construct even with wild speculation. It is simply not how an open system with huge mobile moisture capacity works. It is basic physics. Only by ignoring basic physics can one ‘model’ tipping points caused by CO2.
We will all move to new energy technologies when they work properly, when they affordable, and when there are enough of them available. We do not need to trogylodize humanity on the basis of bad math, poor physics, ignoring the geologists and forgeting climate history. We deserve better than mis-applied precaution.
R.Gates how much of the present C02 levels are caused by man? Also how long does that C02 hang around?
R gates says
What if we are UN-lucky, and the climate is very sensitive to the sharp spike in CO2 that we’ve seen over the past 300 or so years.
Climate shows no high sensitivity at the moment. A deltaT of 0.8°C in 150 years is not high sensitivity.
Secondly, where do you get the idea that we can control all the CO² moving in and out of the atmosphere? when humans add only 3.27% CO² each year.
The sensitivity to CO² and ONLY CO² would have to be enormous for us to be able to control the temp of the planet within 1°C and if we got it wrong and could modify the temp down below the level of 150yrs ago how would our farmers get on? would we be able to produce enough food for 3 times the population of 150yrs ago.
Which risk is greater? That we try to control the climate when we patently can’t or we let the climate move within pre-existing limits and adapt as we have done over the last 3 million years when temps have swung between -10°C and +5°C from those of today?
You AGW / control the climate mob are a bunch of loons. You need to think outside the funding box and in the real world.
CO2 probably plays less of a role when the atmosphere is loaded with water. During an ice age when it is pretty dry, CO2 likely plays a larger role than it does during an interglacial. Not to say it plays that much of a role. If Earth’s atmosphere was pure CO2 and no water it would probably be a little warmer than now but only because of the lack of clouds and heat transport that water provides from the surface to high altitude.
Not only should the U.S. and other developed countries be going full-bore with fossil fuels for prosperity (jobs, happiness, ending quantitive easings, paying off the debt, and enhance global representative democracy), but for the affluence to develop the technology (in a free enterprise environment) to develop additional, more efficient sources of energy — nuclear especially. We could then decide how much CO2 to pump (via fossil fuels) into the atmosphere to keep plant life happy and resistant to drought. We also would have the dough to search and prepare for comet/asteroid impacts that are inevitably coming as well as to mitigate against the inevitable major earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other catastrophes (see Pathological Geomorphology). In addition, we could figure out some grand infrastructure projects such as shipping-sending-piping water (desalinized or melted glacier or massive floods) to dry areas. For example, a Roman or Medieval Warm Period dries out the North American West and other areas as well. Warm is not everywhere wet. Let’s let our Earth bask in the possibilities of its most technologically adept inhabitant — and get out of our own way, a way most uniquely developed in the United States of America.
re post by: rispin in Washington DC says: November 13, 2010 at 11:38 am
That’s an easy one and we have had the technology for decades – nuclear. The biggest problem with nuclear by far has been interference by anti-nuclear factions, and various government regulations.
Hmm! Proxy!
How come we can believe these proxies but not Mann’s?
Every one seems sure that CO2 at high levels will improve the earth an very low levels will kill vegetation. But, assuming the proxies are believable, then we see that vegetation survived the ice ages quite well:
180ppm 20000 years ago
John from CA says:
“I’m not questioning NOAA’s integrity but is it logical to place a CO2 monitoring observatory near a volcano?”
Forget the volcano, – it’s the ENSO, warming up seawater releasing CO2 back to the atmosphere.
Crispin in Washington DC says: “….Solar cells may [soon] reach +60% efficiency (development announced last week).”
Even at 100% efficiency, solar cells are so far from economic practicality that they are a pipe dream except for a very few remote applications. Promoting solar cells as alternative energy is, well, lunacy.
Mike
November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am
You mean so say proxy measurements are not direct measurements of temperature or CO2. They are still empirical.
#
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. The proxy data are empirical measurements. The CO2 values are not, as they were derived through an assumed model.
R. Gates says:
November 13, 2010 at 10:34 am
Do we really want to take the gamble that sending the CO2 levels off the long term chart by our use of fossil fuels will be harmless or simply forestall the next glaciation? This is certainly not prudent. Reducing our addiction to fossil fuels is prudent on many levels, and in my mind, the only real question is how to reduce them in a manner that spreads out the cost of this reduction in an economically equitable way between the wealthy and poor countries of today while preserving a viable planet (for human habitation) for tomorrow.
There you have it, the sum of “progressive” Post Normal Climate Science: demonizing Man’s use of fossil fuel, disasterizing GW, and achieving “equality” or equitable-ness between “rich” and “poor” via central, superimposed control, which will somehow magically cause Nature to become amicable. And all in the face of the fact that Communism has never worked and is essentially a dead end kind of human and societal evolution = Slavery.