This new paper (in review at the discussions section) at Climate of the Past has some interesting approaches using
Oxygen 18 isotope records from benthic foraminiferas acquired in Deep Sea Drilling project (DSDP) on the Kerguelen Plateau off the coast of Antarctica and in the Cape Basin off the coast of Namibia. These drill holes provide
18O records with a resolution of order 10 000 yr across the Eocene-Oligocene boundary thus providing an excellent proxy for deep-ocean temperature.
C, for a doubling of pCO2. Where published values are in units
C/(Wm−2), the published value is multiplied by 3.7 for the purpose of this comparison. Note that Asten’s median value of 1.1 agrees with Douglas and Christy.
Estimate of climate sensitivity from carbonate microfossils dated near the Eocene-Oligocene global cooling
M. W. Asten
School of Geosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia
Abstract.
Climate sensitivity is a crucial parameter in global temperature modelling. An estimate is made at the time 33.4 Ma using published high-resolution deep-sea temperature proxy obtained from foraminiferal δ18O records from DSDP site 744, combined with published data for atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) from carbonate microfossils, where δ11B provides a proxy for pCO2. The pCO2 data shows a pCO2 decrease accompanying the major cooling event of about 4 °C from greenhouse conditions to icecap conditions following the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (33.7 My).
During the cooling pCO2 fell from 1150 to 770 ppmv. The cooling event was followed by a rapid and huge increase in pCO2 back to 1130 ppmv in the space of 50 000 yr. The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C.
Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter is 1.1 ± 0.4 °C (66% confidence) compared with the IPCC central value of 3 °C. The post Eocene-Oligocene transition (33.4 Ma) value of 1.1 °C obtained here is lower than those published from Holocene and Pleistocene glaciation-related temperature data (800 Kya to present) but is of similar order to sensitivity estimates published from satellite observations of tropospheric and sea-surface temperature variations.
The value of 1.1 °C is grossly different from estimates up to 9 °C published from paleo-temperature studies of Pliocene (3 to 4 Mya) age sediments. The range of apparent climate sensitivity values available from paleo-temperature data suggests that either feedback mechanisms vary widely for the different measurement conditions, or additional factors beyond currently used feedbacks are affecting global temperature-CO2 relationships.
Discussion Paper (PDF, 1101 KB) Interactive Discussion (Open)
Readers that have access to Climate of the Past can leave a short comment until 30 Nov 2012. You can also watch the open review process as editors and reviewers leave comments. Constructive comments are welcome.
wsbriggs says:
October 6, 2012 at 7:15 am (Edit)
Mosh’s comment on the scaling factors is interesting. They actually have the uncertainty factors shown in an equation, what a marked change from the usual crap that purports to be science. Not only that, but they state that the ice volume correction can vary by ~30%, and the deep ocean temp response could vary ~33%. So with that information, what is your comment Steven? Too high, too low?
###############################################
Thanks for reading the paper
ha I see the cryptic remark actually got somebody to read the science rather than just a knee jerk responses ( like.. models suck.. they are only in it for the gold.. We are right, Warmer is better, blah blah blah blah… ) It pretty simple guys. Lots of people are fighting for open journals and no more paywall. You dont support that movement by reacting to a paper without reading it. And you are not a skeptic if you dont read CRITICALLY.
The problem is they included the systematics in their analysis but not in their topline report.
The systematics is a product of S1 which ranges from .7 to 1 and S2 which ranges from 1 to 1.5. I would think they should report the full uncertainty which will result in a broader range that goes as high as 2 or close to it. The biggest uncertainty is the scaling factor of the deep ocean temp to the global temp ( Hansen suggests 1.5 .. from memory please check)
There other problem (misleading thing ) is the table of sensitivity estimates. They should probably only compare deep paleo with other deep paleo. In the end, here I would agree with Hansen. Deep paleo gives you the best estimate of ECR.. basically you get the system response over a long period so all feedbacks get included.
Too high or too low?
Lukewarmer position is pretty clear. There is a better than 50% chance that the ECR falls below 3 and above 1C. including systematics they fall in the .lower half of Lukewarmer with a max of around 2C.
This one reason why HS studies dont matter. HS studies cant constrain the estimate of ECR.
Time span is too short and uncertainty is too high.. you get very broad PDFs.
The evidence for ECR comes in three varieties
1. Deep Paleo
2. Short term observational
3. Climate models.
#1 is key. #2 is hotly debated ( Lindzen, etc ) #3 isnt evidence, per se.
ferdinand engelbeen says
as we currently observe an increase in DIC over time and a decrease in pH of the seawater surface layer, it may be clear that temperature is not the driving force for most of the increase over the past decades
henry says
I am so glad you agreed with me last time that Borsselen should be made flood proof.
There have been several recent studies that showed a marked increase in bio activity both on land and on sea. So there is your explanation for the increase in DIC.
I don’t regard two stations for measuring pH as representative of all of the earth’s waters and the decrease is so small as to fall mostly within the error of calibration.
Either way, energy -in is going down from 1995 so the reaction now goes the other way:
CO2 + 2H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
So there is you explanation for that observation.
I saw there is a station in Alaska that reports CO2 flat now from around 2007. I suspect the others keep reporting that CO2 is not flat, because otherwise they might lose their reason for being…..and with that the loss of their salaries of course.
Henry says
either way, energy-in is going down from 1995
see here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
in case you missed that…
They have their cart in front of their horse. CO2 level changes are brought about by changes in temperature. In this case you cannot have it both ways.
Suey says:
October 6, 2012 at 5:37 am (Edit)
‘The large pCO2 increase was accompanied by a small deep-ocean temperature increase estimated as 0.59 ± 0.063 °C….Climate sensitivity estimated from the latter’
So he’s trying to redefine climate sensitivity? The deep-ocean temperature response to forcing changes?
#################################
Lets clear up this confusion once and for all. First some in climate science are responsible for the confusion, but lets fix the problem and not the blame.
CLIMATE sensitivity is a measure of the system response to a change in forcing.
Change in temperature ( C) for change in Watts of forcing.
So, a change of 1 Watt of forcing causes a change in temperature of “x’ C
There are two measures here: TRANSIENT change or TCR and equillibrium change or ECR.
If the sun increases 1 watt on average you would expect to see the temperature go up. The short term responsenis transient response. Over time the system will reach a new steady state. The temperature then will include feedbacks. ECR is greater than or equal to TCR.
People also talk about a sensitivity to DOUBLING.. that confuses the conversation.
lets say the sensitivity of the climate is .8. That means a 1 watt increase in forcing will create an increase of .8C. Thats the response IN C to a forcing in Watts. It says nothing about C02. If the sun increases output and the earth warms. that response would be the sensitivity to a change in forcing.
Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts. if the climate repsonds by increasing temps to 3C then the sensitivity to doubling is 3C.. 3C per 3.7Watts.
If you think that doubling C02 (3.7Watts ) leads to 1 C warming.. Then a 1 watt change in the sun would lead to less than .3C warming.
So two different numbers: sensitivity to change in forcing of 1 watt. and the change due to a change of 3.7Watts.
There seems to be a significant amount of comment that purports to be from serious scientific sources, yet they have no links? Are you under the impression that your opinions have some sort of merit?
NYT publishing BS again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/scientists-in-washington-state-adopt-tiny-island-as-climate-change-bellwether.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
There it is again…. “Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts.”, stated as fact by Mosher.
Mosher, that’s an assumption, it’s never has been empirically proven that I have ever come across. If you merely state a small lab test-tube test, that just don’t cut it for myself and many others.
However, you know what would be a very good test to see if an open ended test, with an established thermal gradient, would actually show that figure so many just assume of that hypothetic value in a planetary atmosphere?
Take the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Collider) some time when it is down for maintenance and use that two-mile tube for a more realistic ‘atmosphere’. One end capped with a dual plate with liquid nitrogen flowing between the plates (the space end), the other end using a warmed copper plate much a Tyndall original apparatus, at 288K, as the LW generator for the ‘surface’ end. Temperature loggers along the two mile tube.
Now vary the CO2 concentration within at 1 STP, from 300 to 600 to 900 ppmv and then back down to 600 to 300 for a few cycles as the data was being logged of the temperature variances along that shortened ‘atmosphere’ (from the 11 km to about 4 km).
I now you will never be able to also get the pressure and density gradient of a real atmosphere but it seems that would be the about the best we could ever approach. If such a test showed warming a quarter of the way from the ‘surface’ end I would no longer question this 3.7Wm-2/C figure as being actual in an real atmosphere’s environment.
My suspicions are such a test would show a fraction of the 3.7, could even be zero, could even be very slightly negative due to the increased thermal conductivity via radiation between that infinite cold absorber end and the warm surface end.
[+emphasis]
Without commenting on the validity or clarity of your post, do you REALLY think that it clears up the confusion “once and for all.”?
;>)
There it is again…. “Doubling C02 increases forcing by 3.7Watts.”, stated as fact by Mosher.
Mosher, that’s an assumption, it’s never has been empirically proven that I have ever come across. If you merely state a small lab test-tube test, that just don’t cut it for myself and many others.
#####################
Wayne.
1. Do IR sensors in missiles work according to theory?
2. Do you trust the satellite imagery you’ve seen?
3. Do you trust a weather satellite that measures the speed of winds using the doppler effect?
4. Does you cell phone work and do you trust the physics used to design cell towers and antenna?
Simply put. First we see if you trust various devices that are engineered using very precise physics.
Then, I will show you the empirical tests.
But first. Do you trust the physics of radiation transfer? and are youaware of all the testing that physics has under gone? have you ever worked with a LBL physics model. If the DoD accepts them and infact built them to defend this country do you accept them.
Answer.
Also, you dont test this in SLAC. If you understood the physics you would not suggest anything so stupid
Steven Mosher says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:52 pm
If you think that doubling C02 (3.7Watts ) leads to 1 C warming.. Then a 1 watt change in the sun would lead to less than .3C warming.
Steven, I usually agree with your point of view, but here I differ: What you say here is only true if solar forcing and CO2 forcing have exactly the same effect. That is one of the basics of current models (+/- 10% around unity, which is for CO2). But that is questionable: are you sure that 1 W/m2 change in solar income (mainly changing in the UV-range – ozone – stratospheric changes – jet stream position – weather patterns + deeper water warming + Svensmark effect) has the same effect as 1 W/m2 in GHG forcing (lower troposphere – upper fraction of a mm in water)? See:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf
As I noted above there is a recording station at Race Rocks. It is about 40 miles east of Tatoosh. Look at RR’s records of salinity. http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/data/seatemp/seatemp.htm January 1937 it was at 31.6. January 2010 it was at 30.16. Seems like those readings debunk the rising salinity from CO2 conjecture in the NYT article.
Stephen Wilde says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Simply, If the balance between release and absorption changes then the atmospheric CO2 levels will change and Henry’s Law provides no constraint because it only works on a point by point basis locally or regionally and not globally.
As said in the previous comment, Henry’s Law holds as well for static (point sources/sinks) as for dynamic changes: if the water temperature at the warm equatorial upwelling places increases with 1°C, the pCO2 of water may go up from 700 to 716 microatm, which gives that the pressure difference with the atmosphere goes up from 305 microatm to 321 microatm. For the same windspeed, that means that the release of CO2 from the (deep) oceans there increases with 5%. At the other side, when the seawater temperature at the sink places increases with 1°C, the pCO2 difference decreases and thus the sink flow decreases with some similar %.
Both cause an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But when the increase reaches 16 ppmv, both the release and sink flows are again the same as before the temperature increase, be it at a higher level in the atmosphere, as dictated by Henry’s Law.
Wind speed has its influence on the speed of exchanges, but not on the levels reached. Even huge hurricanes or active vs. less active hurricane seasons don’t show much influence on CO2 levels.
The physics which describes how radiation transfers through the atmosphere is fundamental to the design of radars, IR sensors, basically anything that sends a signal through earths atmosphere or interprets signals from the surface.
So yes, those satellites we rely on actually use Models of radiative physics to figure out what they are looking at. The data presented at the sensor face ( like a CCD ) is passed through algorithms to create data products. Those algorithms rely on the physics of radiation moving through our atmosphere. These models come in two varieties; Band models ( like MODTRAN) and the more complete LBL models or Line By Line models.
Both MODTRAN and the LBL models are used in everyday engineering. If you want to know how to size your attenna or size your sensor to detect signals you have to use one of these models.
For example. Imagine you are building an aircraft that flies at 50K feet. Imagine you want to determine if that aircraft will be Viewable to an IR sensor on the ground. Say a stinger missile.
Well, that IR signal has to pass through the atmosphere. What happens to it? how much of the signal gets scattered? how much get absorbed? how much makes it through to the sensor?
Those questions are answered by radiative physics, by LBL models and band Models.
Of course those models are tested against observation. And they work. They work so well that they used to be classified. They work so well that we defend our liberty with them.
Some reading.
First some proof that the models work
Walden, V. P., S. G. Warren, and F. J. Murcray (1998), Measurements of the downward longwave radiation spectrum over the Antarctic Plateau and comparisons with a line-by-line radiative transfer model for clear skies, J. Geophys. Res., 103(D4), 3825–3846, doi:10.1029/97JD02433.
Ellingson & Wiscombe (1996), Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 77, Issue 9, “The Spectral Radiance Experiment (SPECTRE): Project Description and Sample Results”,
So the physical models are correct but then you all knew that. You knew it because our country is defended by this science. you cell phone and Wifi works because this science is correct.
What we can then do is estimate what happens if we double C02 in our atmosphere. It goes without saying that we cannot do this experiment in a controlled fashion. That is, we can simply go out and double the C02 in the real atmosphere. So we take a model that we know works to predict the way the world works ( tested and verified ) and we double C02 holding everything else constant.
That gives us this
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
here you see the famous log() relationship, however, that relationship was determined over a hundred years ago..
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
and another good read to understand the basics
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
October 6, 2012 at 3:42 pm (Edit)
################
You are correct. I should have been a bit clearer on the 1 watt issue. My main point is that people should not confuse climate sensitivity with the sensitivity to doubling C02.
The UV stuff is interesting. espec WRT methane
HenryP says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:38 pm
There have been several recent studies that showed a marked increase in bio activity both on land and on sea. So there is your explanation for the increase in DIC.
An increase in bio-activity gives a decrease of DIC, not an increase. Part of DIC is used in the shell of some plankton (coccoliths) and all organics. Part of the food chain drops out of the surface as organic and inorganic sediments at a net cost of DIC in the surface layer. Or why you think they tried to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere by fertilizing experiments (with iron) on the ocean surface?
Many measurements were/are done with ships surveys over the decades. They all show the same trends: an increase of DIC and a decrease in pH (usually not measured, but calculated from the alkalinity, DIC and salt content, which is more accurate than direct measurements). But the stations have the longest continuous record.
Either way, energy -in is going down from 1995 so the reaction now goes the other way:
CO2 + 2H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
The energy or heat delivered to water is not of direct influence on the equilibrium reactions or pCO2, only temperature is. As far as I know, seawater temperatures in average haven’t dropped (yet), thus the drop in pH and increase in DIC can’t be explained from that.
John Marshall says:
October 6, 2012 at 2:40 am
“…Whilst 18O proxy data is good for temperature it does not relate to heat content. Go back and recalculate…”
Wouldn’t the rate of change of 18O be a better proxy of temperature? To me, it seems that glacial volume is a proxy for heat content and that 18O closely correlates. I also wonder if heat content is the integral of surface air temperature? That is, there would be a 1/4 cycle lag of heat in relation to temperature. Roe found that the glacial melting rate correlates best with a zero lag of summer time solar insolation at high latitude. To me, this implies that the “temperature” proxies are actually “heat” proxies.
Line by Line transfer code works for frequencies – it doesn’t mean it work as advertised for a whole atmosphere.
Photons at 10 Um will get intercepted by CO2 at certain rates over certain distances. Then what happens. That whole part is missing. I want the rest of the story.
The Earth emits to space 1,811,047,389,073,350,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 IR photons per year. Somebody has a guesstimate about how that works and we are supposed to just accept it.
DWR54 says: October 6, 2012 at 5:32 am
Re post 1, Allan MacRae: can you confirm that you still believe a sixth order is “the best fit polynomial” trend line to use for the UAH data, as you stated in this Sept. 2008 article at ‘ICECAP’: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/
DWR, whether you realize it or not, you are asking a mathematical question. I ran the available polynomial fits against the UAH data, and the one with the best fit was used in the paper.
A better questions would be:
Does this 6th order polynomial have any predictive value? Perhaps you can answer that for yourself.
However, in a 2002 paper we did say:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Since then there has been NO net global warming, contrary to the IPCC’s dire predictions of catastrophic global warming.
In another 2002 article I (we) predicted global cooling to begin by ~2020-2030.
I really hope we’re wrong about imminent global cooling, but our predictive track record is infinitely better than that of the IPCC and the global warming alarmist movement.
Ladies and Gentlemen: Faites vos jeux…
Something I was carelessly neglecting myself is that this is a much different situation than the ice age graphs of temperature change causing CO2 release, much different than such as the first graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
In the case of the ice age graphs of the past few hundred thousand years, temperature varies by 7K or more, while CO2 meanwhile ranges by around 100 ppm or less.
In contrast, in this study’s era of focus, CO2 varies by several times more, while temperature varies by a number of times less.
In fact, within what this study is looking at, the ratio of change in CO2 in ppm to the change in temperature in K is literally tens of times greater.
The ratio of change in temperature, even at the surface, let alone deep ocean temperature, to the change in CO2 is far less than in the ice age graphs, not the same order of magnitude.
In other words, while temperature change predominately causes the change in CO2 seen in the ice age graphs, this temperature change did not cause the 770 -> 1130 ppm CO2 change, not being the right order of magnitude.
CO2 variation meanwhile occurred from other factors.
Steven Mosher:
“Simply put. First we see if you trust various devices that are engineered using very precise physics.”
Unless you’re claiming that the atmosphere is a manmade device engineered using very precise physics? Then this is a red herring and an argument beneath anyone exceeding a room temperature IQ.
“Then, I will show you the empirical tests.”
Burden shifting. What you mean is that you have no empirical evidence relevant to the issue of CO2 doubling. Nothing surprising about this as your math doesn’t work as presented.
Hint: At 3.7 W/m^2 of radiation per doubling — what then is the double of 0 ppm of CO2?
“Of course those models are tested against observation. And they work. They work so well that they used to be classified. They work so well that we defend our liberty with them.”
A nice use of emotive pleas and equivocation. Our ‘Liberty’ is not defended by the failed models of climatology. Nor is our ‘Liberty’ defended by the ham-fisted and mathematically illiterate approach that climatologists prefer. But if you mean instead that our ‘Liberty’ is defended by partisan hacks? Then sure, I suppose we both agree that politicians exist and make the decisions on military expenditures and usage.
I applaud that you stooped to flesh out your argument a bit. But it’s still meaningless unless you can fix your math, your fallacies, and do something at all about stepping up to the empirical plate. We can deal with Popperian notions of falsified models later.
Skiphil says:
October 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm
ooh, 1.1C (+/) will put quite a damper on Alarmist frenzies…..not much of a pretext for panic there…. they will need to find ways to discredit or ignore this.
————-
Nup. Will not be ignored and will only be discredited if its faulty in some way. There is already a body of research in this area and researchers will have to figure out why this does not agree with other research. Simply saying this paper is correct because it gives you the answer you want, does not cut the mustard in real science land.
Steven Mosher;
So the physical models are correct but then you all knew that. You knew it because our country is defended by this science. you cell phone and Wifi works because this science is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well excuse me but bullsh*t.
Cell phone and wifi and radar and other examples work precisely because we use the part of the signal that does NOT get absorbed/reflected/scattered as it passes through the atmosphere. It does not follow that we know with any degree of certainty what happens to the part of the signal that DOES get absorbed/reflected/scattered and that is precisely the part of the signal that is important to understand in the context of CO2 forcing. Further, it is the secondary and following effects of what happens to the signal AFTER it is absorbed/reflected/scattered that are of as much or more importance and the fact is that we know even LESS about them than we do about the direct effects.
Claiming we know how wifi works and so that means the climate models are accurate is utter and total hogwash.
I would also like to disagree that a lower cap has been placed on CO2 sensitivity. This would only be the case if it were provable that oceanic temperatures had no effect on CO2 concentration,
and it is well known that colder fluids dissolve more gases.
Although radiative physics suggests that a certain variation in CO2 causes a radiative forcing, asserting that this directly leads to temperature variation ignores the physics of convection. Fixed lapse rates means that the extra heat is easily convected away for the slightest of increases in temperature.
Therefore the lower bound on CO2 sensitivity might approach zero.
LazyTeenager says:
October 6, 2012 at 6:50 pm
“Nup. Will not be ignored and will only be discredited if its faulty in some way. There is already a body of research in this area and researchers will have to figure out why this does not agree with other research. Simply saying this paper is correct because it gives you the answer you want, does not cut the mustard in real science land.”
IOW, LT hasn’t got a clue.