Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The quote above is from Lord of the Rings, an exchange between Gollum and Smeagol, and it encapsulates my latest results from looking into the Shakun 2012 paper, “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (paywalled, at Nature hereinafter Shakun2012). I discussed the paper in my post “Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy“. Please see that post for the underlying concepts and citations.
When I left off in that post of mine, I had investigated each of the 80 proxies used in Shakun2012. I plotted them all, and I compared them to the CO2 record used in their paper. I showed there was no way that the proxies could support the title of the paper. Figure 1 recaps that result, showing the difficulty of establishing whether CO2 leads or lags the warming.
Figure 1. All proxies (green dots) from Shakun2012 (Excel spreadsheet). CO2 values digitized from Shakun 2012 Figure 1a. There is pretty good agreement between the warming and the changes in CO2.
Note that the proxies say the earth generally warmed from the last ice age, starting somewhere about 15,000 BC, and the warming lasted until about 9,000 BC. Since then, the proxies have the greatest agreement (darkest green). They say that the globe generally cooled over the length of the Holocene, the current interglacial period since the last ice age.
Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.
Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.
Figure 2 shows the surprise …
Figure 2. As in Figure 1. Black circles show Shakun2012 CO2. Additional colored dots show the ice core CO2 records which have data from 26,000 BC to the present.
Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.
I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …
I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …
And I leave everyone to ponder how far climate “science” has fallen, that a tricksy study of this nature can be published in Nature, and can get touted around the world as being strong support for the AGW hypothesis. The only thing this study supports is the need for better peer review, and at a more basic level, better science education.
My best to all, stay skeptical,
w.
Source data:
ICE CORE CO2 DATA: All ice core CO2 data are from the NOAA Paleoclimatology site, the “Ice Core Gateway” page, in the section “Gases”.
[UPDATE] A hat tip to Jostein, in the comments he points out that the original Shakun Nature paper is here (pdf).
Willis Eschenbach says:April 8, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Several people have said that orbital forcings are the reason for the decline in temperature over the holocene. As the earth goes around the sun, over time the eccentricity and the obliquity of the orbit slowly changes.
The problem with this theory is that the orbital forcings change the distribution of the sunlight, but barely change the total sunlight at all. Since there is no change in TOA insolation, why would that cool the earth?
I could see where earth with a low obliquity would have more stable atmospheric systems controlled by latitude with no seasons. I would suspect warming flowing consistently towards both poles year long. This may not change much at extreme latitudes but could reduce the coldest circumference by extending warm some degrees toward both poles.
Willis is quite correct to suggest that the proxies need to be looked at individually as he has done. (If one were asked to describe a picket fence and had data on 80 picket fences, any one fence is far more useful than any notion of an average picket fence. Averaging always destroys some information, often useful information.)
Others writing here have made comments along the same lines. Here I am just suggesting a simplified way of looking at this.
Let’s (over)simplify things. Suppose each of the 80 proxies is an instantaneous temperature step in time and that the step times are uniformly distributed in time from something like 15000 BC to 5000BC. Averaging would give a ramp (in small steps) from 15000 to 5000. Now, more realistically, the transition step times might be normally distributed, and now the average would look sharper (not just a ramp) and would be like an integrated Gaussian.
The point is that we could easily and predictably make the transition point of the average move up or down (relative to CO2) by including or excluding outlier proxies. So if we were of a mind to “adjust” the result, we would know how to do it.
If we assume no attempt at deliberate deception, then we should still be aware of the likelihood of fooling ourselves by our particular choice of a particular set of 80 proxies. There is no obvious way to fix this problem in general and even less hope in the case where the times range over 2/3 of the overall time period considered.
It’s a hopeless, disparate mess. Willis said it simply: “It’s all over the map.” Indeed.
andyd on April 8, 2012 at 2:54 pm said:
Lazy, I am trying to understand which graphs you are referring to.
———-
All figures . But I have figured it out now. Brain was fixated on the scale being the conventional before present, except it’s actual origin is 0 AD or maybe 0 BC.
[snip sorry, not going to let you revive an old grudge fight here – Anthony]
[snip]
Jimbo says
Nice point, tell that to Hansen (1988) and compare to the present global mean temps. Not (yet) opposite but wrong. IPCC 1990 again wrong. Think a about it.
Ideas: Oceans, sun, inclination…………..
————
On short time scales I am not expecting temperature to track CO2 in lock step. CO2 is not the only thing affecting temperature. Ocean water turn over can produce short term variations as can other stuff.
This particular example is interesting because it is a long term effect. A few years ago one paper floated the idea that early agriculture had an effect, but I regard that result with some skepticism. This observation by Willis is consistent with that, but consistency and a demonstrated real effect requires joining dots we don’t yet have.
Hi Smokey . He says
If you could ever get over your fixation on “carbon” propaganda, you might conclude that CO2 may not have the effect claimed. And of course there is also the well established CO2 lag time, which allows for divergence.
———-
Actually Smokey I learn most of my stuff from you skeptic guys. I read and analyse what you say, conclude you have no idea what you are talking about, and then go and find some decent physics or figure it out myself. So my actual sources are climate skeptic propaganda.
Smokey says
In fact, warming oceans do emit massive amounts of CO2, despite Adler’s crazed disbelief.
———–
The obvious prediction derived from this assertion is that measured amounts of CO2 in seawater are going down. Wanna bet the CO2 concentration in seawater is going up?
Hoser, some people would say so. 🙂
Smokey reckons that the ocean is out gassing CO2.
———-
LT dinna believe it, so LT went looking for the historical trend in CO2 concentration in sea water. Found Keeling’s tribute page and a whopping great review article of the field and it’s historical development here: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/the_influence_of_david_keeling_2009_brewer.pdf
For those who don’t do links there is a pretty false color map of the earth for 1995 that is 80% green. Green meaning the ocean is a net sink of CO2 at that point. Also lots of graphs of the trend.
More there than you ever wanted to know about CO2 in sea water and how it is measured.
I think what the big picture shows, is that the warmist’s are looking for data to support their theory rather than analyzing the data, all of the data, and trying to figure out what it means. If you are ONLY looking for data to support your theory, it is really easy to find some. Why is it in climate science, the warmists are only looking for data to support their theory and ignoring everything else?
I think it should be standard fare now to be absolutely CERTAIN to check to see what data was left out (or altered) whenever any papers supporting AGW are published. No longer can/should they be trusted to be an objective source. The continual refusal to present (or outright hide) and discuss evidence that has a “problem” following the theory or model results in total loss of confidence to trust any conclusions they come to.
Still, whether the conclusions are right or wrong (mostly wrong or inconclusive it would seem) this study by Shakun has no effect what-so-ever on the debate on whether we need to drastically alter our way of life and standard of living. That debate is about HOW MUCH warming we can expect from rising CO2 due to use of fossil fuels, and there is plenty of evidence (as opposed to models) to suggest it will be less than 1C of warming per doubling of CO2.
Frank says:
April 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm
You are right, but it’s a difference that doesn’t make a difference at this level of analysis and with this amount of CO2 variation. Here’s the difference:
Regards,
w.
Pamela Gray says: April 8, 2012 at 8:59 am
“My big critism would be that they should have ended both data sets at the same point, leaving the recent past to someone else’s endeavors. Nick, you would have to agree with me on this point at least.”
I’m not sure where I made any points about CO2 leading or lagging – in fact, despite the impressions of Vince Causey etc, all I’ve said is that the plots he showed covered periods that were relevant to the phenomenon that he was writing about. But on that point, despite what Willis seemed to say, the diagrams as summarised here all seem to cover exactly the same period, ending about 8K BP. And yes, that does extend at each end a bit beyond the deglaciation. You generally need to do that when graphing, just to show that the graph does enclose the required period.
Wow,
I think Follow the Money has just hit Nature on the nose with the exposé of their lead editorial, the editorial brotherhood were just unable to hold themselves back with excitement!
Perhaps the editorial should be retitled ‘Bolstering the Alarmist Propaganda’
sophocles says:
April 8, 2012 at 12:35 am
Phillip Bradley says:
When temperatures fell during the YD, CO2 just stopped rising.
====================================================
and phlogiston says:
It is curious how CO2 flatlined during the Younger Dryas.
====================================================
… there should be GCR/Solar activity proxies for the same period which can indicate what else
was happening.
I can see the sun waking up, or the GCR count dropping—or both—BEFORE the big melt started. The clouds roll back and the ice begins to melt. Then the CO2 starts to rise as the oceans warm …
wmconnolley says:
April 8, 2012 at 12:48 am
Wandering off in conspiracy land again I see. You need to read Eric Wolff
Indeed the data on CO2 and temp proxies is complex and one cant necessarily snatch at easy conclusions.
However the elephant in the room here is the Younger Dryas (YD). As commented above, during the YD temperatures fell (as shown by the ice cores and better proxies) but CO2 did not. To anyone genuinely interested in reasons for global temperature change and with an open mind as to the role of CO2, this YD observation should be of huge interest as an important clue.
Here is a possible explanation:
1. Ocean temperatures drive major climate shifts such as between glacial and interglacial, and as such, oceans started warming about 20 kYa.
2. CO2 follows ocean temperatures due to CO2 solubility in water – warm flat coke scenario.
3. The YD was not an ocean driven event but was caused by some atmospheric catastrophe:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2011/07/27/the-younger-dryas-impact-hypothesis/
therefore while global temperatures fell for about 1000 years, CO2 did not.
Note that 1000 years is approximately the circulation time of the oceans and thus a short time in terms of ocean heat cycling.
Eventually the longer term ocean driven warming overcame the YD event and the Holocene interglacial became established.
4. Thus in general ocean driven climatic temperature changes will have a CO2 signature (related to ocean CO2 solubility) while atmospheric driven temperature changes will not (except insofar as they affect the ocean).
Shakun et al have exploited the extra complexity added to the Holocene initiation by the Younger Dryas to conjure evidence for a temp lag, for political ends. I described this earlier as the “Younger Dryas two-step”. However the real interest in the start of the Holocene and the YD is in the clues it provides concerning the causes and driving of global climate shifts in general.
The “logic” of Shakun et al. is well described by Piers Corbyn:
What they’ve done is like mixing apples and oranges and leaving them to rot.
The apples rot first giving off a stink and the oranges rot later. You see that most of the fruit –
the ‘average’ – rotted after the stink started and conclude: The stink caused the fruit to rot.
Finally – the uptick in CO2 reported here by Willis in the latter part of the Holocene (coinciding with declining tempereature) could be a long term ecological consequence of de-glaciation such as slow melting of permafrost, methyl clathrate ocean releases etc. The opposing rise of CO2 and fall in temperatures point further to the impotence of CO2 as a climate driver. This role is played by the ocean.
rgbatduke says:
April 8, 2012 at 8:12 am
It looks like:
While I am happy to believe that the bistable oscillations observed over the last half million or more years are coupled to astronomical cycles, that does not suffice to explain the bistability. There is a causal factor missing.
A nonlinear oscillating system does not need an external forcer to exactly drive its transitions – such dynamics can come from within the system with no external driver and no apparent cause. Consider the Belousov-Zhabotinsky oscillatory reaction for example. That said however, although some nonlinear oscillators are non forced, others are externally forced, and they fall into two categories – strongly and weakly forced.
Our heartbeat is a nonlinear oscillator which is normally unforced and generates its own frequency, however in heart disease where this internal forcing breaks down external strong forcing can be provided in the form of a pacemaker. This is strong forcing – heartbeat follows the pacemaker. However there are also weakly forced nonlinear oscillators where there is no clear relationship (or a very complex relationship) between forcer and emergent nonlinear oscillation.
It seems to me most likely that climatic oscillations between for instance bistable glacial and interglacial attractors, is weakly forced by astrophysical orbital forcings and possibly solar cycling also. Making it very hard to link the oscillation to the forcing, even though the bistable signature is very clear. For instance 1 million years ago the bistable oscillation flipped from following the 40 kYr inclination wobble forcing to the 100 kYr eccentricity cyclic forcing. This flipping between two drivers suggests weak nonlinear forcing in the context of multiple weak forcers.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler says:
April 8, 2012 at 11:12 am
Volker Doormann: “Science is to show agreements in nature, not to being skeptic on possible agreements, because skeptic is not a method of science.”
Science is unique among the ways of knowing in its great respect for skepticism.
That is not an argument, but a personal belief statement, and therefore not a valid method of science; arguments always are related to reasons not to an *Ism.
Willis says, he belief nothing, but that shows no knowledge.
Other approaches emphasize faith, but scientists accept as possible truths only those assertions that survive extensive skeptical challenges.
What scientist, you claim, accept, is not relevant, because truth is not an eigenvalue of social groups.
The claim ‘extensive skeptical challenges’ is a fraud, because skeptics never have shown what IS; moreover they never have been skeptic on skepticism. It is a nonlinear method like politics, morality, power of authority and/or government people, or claims idol power in blogs to non-followers.
There is a fact: The solar tide function of the two celestial objects Quaoar and Pluto correlates with the changes of the temperature proxies in the ice core records in the Antarctica over a time interval of 5000 years; here the correlation in the phase and time coherence is better than the correlation of the magnitude.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/vo_m4k.gif
This fact is an independent scientific fact. It is a scientific fact, because it is a fact from geometry and geometry is a method of science. No skeptic, no peer of authorities can make this fact untrue.
Leif Svalgaard as a member of a peer says:
“Volker Doormann says: This proves nothing more than that a solar spring tide is in phase with global high sea level.”
Mercury is as relevant as my flat tire. Has no effect whatsoever.”
This is a classic example of skepticism, because it claims NOTHING, and it ignores by the claimed authority of a peer the fact, that the solar tide function of Mercury as a part of the high frequency temperature oscillations measured by UAH shows strong correlations but also in the sea level oscillations.
Your claim of skepticism is not a claim of science, but a claim on judgment in a hierarchy of peers, layman, and plebeian. Science is an open garden without nonlinearities to discuss facts and to find the rules of the one nature. No invalid argument out of hundred processed by clean tools to errors gives truth.
I do not know why people are fighting against an unvisible gost molecule like Don Quixote against wind mills, while a lot work have to be done answering the questions to the cause of heat boost jump of ~8° Cel after any ice age. This is especially relevant, because the FFT analysis of Bolshakov of the ice core data, shows power peaks which have a geometric and physical relation to possible resonant modes in the Sun.
cartoon
V.
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler (April 8, 2012 at 11:45 am) suggested:
“keep the text succinct”
Agree wholeheartedly. This is essential.
Acheson says
I think what the big picture shows, is that the warmist’s are looking for data to support their theory rather than analyzing the data, all of the data, and trying to figure out what it means. If you are ONLY looking for data to support your theory, it is really easy to find some.
——–
Errr, what theory would that be?
All of these changes in CO2 and temperature are occurring before human civilization started. Which means that there is no anthropogenic CO2 to speak of over this period. Which means there is no AGW prediction that during these prehistoric periods CO2 increases will preceded temperature rises.
In fact the prediction is the opposite. Solar Insolation charges cause temperature rises which cause CO2 rises which in turn amplify the temperature rise in positive feedback. AGW theory has it that temperature rises are expected to precede CO2 rises in the post ice sheet time frame.
This paper contradicts that theoretical expectation.
Steven Mosher says:
April 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm
When you find periods where the two ( GHGs and temp) do not move in concert, you know one thing: all other things were not equal. You don’t know and you can’t know that GHGs dont increase warming. You dont and cant because fundamental physics is correct. We known that its correct because we building working devices based on that physics.
Classic fallacious ‘petitio principii’, “begging the question”, affirming the consequent argument. It is astonishing to think that those who work or write about science know so little of logic, philosophy and history that they can make such a claim.
“fundamental physics is correct. We known that its correct because we building working devices based on that physics.”
We know nothing of the sort from embracing fallacies such as affirming the consequent. Both Laplace and Carnot believed that heat was an imponderable fluid, ‘caloric’. The steam engine was a working device based on such faulty fundamental physics, as were the seemingly correct thermodynamic predictions of the day. Other examples are legion. Seemingly accurate predictions and working devices have been based on faulty physics for centuries. The instrumental use of current physical theories to produce working devices in no way proves that fundamental physics is correct. Oh, yes, science can be very useful in an instrumental sense to engineers and technologists, but ‘fundamental physics’ is not and never has been ‘correct’ since it is always changing. Our so-called ‘physical laws’ are only ever imperfect models of reality, mere human abstractions from limited data and understanding, and often quite tentative and ephemeral.
Many points here brilliantly put, and thanks as always, Willis.
Two Thoughts from me:
=> Politely ask all the co-authors of this Nature paper if they were really aware of what they put their names too (preferably via someone who knows them).
=> Could the Gentlemen of Nature show us bursts in CO2 levels which precede solar events such as the large Coronal hole at the centre of the solar disc today (April 9th) as forecast – and which is a driver of weather and likely earthquake events?! See pic of
Large Coronal Hole heading for center of Suns disc today as we warned: http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?day=09&month=04&year=2012&view=view
and our forecast which apart from weather events also says Major Quakes are likely to come in the present period (~8-10th) as a consequence of this coronal hole and related solar events
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9413
Nature’s editorial “So let there be no confusion now: the new study confirms that, as Earth emerged from the last ice age some 19,000 to 10,000 years ago, rising global temperatures were preceded by increased global carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — a result that emphasizes the role of carbon dioxide in driving global change in the present day. This relationship is a foundation stone of climate science and of policies to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, and it is solid.”
Can this possibly be written by educated scientists? I think not. Even if it were the case that ‘rising global temperatures were preceded by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’, which, looking at all the data underlying the paper is certainly not proven, this in no way implies causation, so it is folly to assert that this ‘confirms’ and ’emphasizes’ that ‘carbon dioxide is driving global change in the present day’. That does not follow from the data, and it is an unscientific observation.
This relationship is said to be ‘solid’, and the ‘foundation stone of climate science’ and the expensive public policies. However, it is dangerous to use words such as ‘solid’ in the scientific enterprise. A ‘solid foundation’ is one that will support a building, such that even if the building is modified or even rebuilt the foundations remain. With this metaphor, the relationship that global temperatures always follow CO2 changes is one that cannot be questioned because it is so fundamental. This is a dangerous place for any editor to be in in a supposedly scientific journal, for he will be minded to reject papers that robustly demonstrate otherwise, and accept feeble and ill-conceived papers that support the assertion.
Science does not progress by having touchstones of truth, tests of orthodoxy, unchallengeable doctrines and the like. True, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but let’s not close our minds to what can be admitted as evidence in the first place. Such prejudice is the way into a scientific dead end.
One thing that struck me was the similarity of the CO2 response and the transient response of a cro probe that has not been adjusted properly. For example see here.http://www.analogzone.com/tmt_0314.pdf
But I also started to think about the CO2 as having different sources with different time constants.
The temperature readings are also local perhaps’ with some being affected by water vapor feedbacks more than others. Near the poles, little water vapour, near the equator lots, thus CO2 levels having less direct influence as time goes on. Have not convinced myself at this stage.
“Their title is
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”
Seems clear to me. And that’s what they plotted.”
Sure, and they chose not to plot “Global cooling preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.”
Smokey says:
April 8, 2012 at 8:28 pm
“Eric Adler seems to actually believe that a warming ocean does not outgas massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Adler is consumed by his incurable cognitive dissonance, wondering like Orwell’s Mr. Smith: if enough people believe that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true?”
Smokey,
I never said anything of the sort! I said that the fact that warm oceans outgas CO2 doesn’t mean that CO2 cannot warm the oceans as you claimed in a post above. This is a false contradiction.
If you are being serious here, it is clear that you don’t understand logic or you cannot read. Ignorant posts such as yours deserve to be ignored.