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.
peterg,
Excellent comment. Thanks for posting.
LazyTeenager has had better days.
Elucidation has escaped his grasp.
Yet, here we are.
“The theory that CO2 can trap radiation, or acidify sea water in the concentrations it is present in our atmosphere and oceans is physically impossible, and no amount of Mickey Mouse conclusions will change that”
Exactly. All the energy spent arguing over literal nothingness. The oceans have an extensive amount of buffers that chemically resist Ph change, especially from CO2, not exactly a strong acid maker as it does not stay readily in solution. Just open a bottle beer and let it sit over night…oops went flat. Oh darn.
If anything, I would say the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere that dilutes water vapor would actually have a cooling effect as the CO2 increases to 100%.
But….it is more fun to debate … a condition of having too much free time.
This study compares 18O from benthic forams with an 11B proxy for atmospheric pCO2 in pelagic forams over a small benthic temperature drop and recovery and a large pCO2 drop and recovery.
the paper states (I summarize) ” the change is consistent with carbon cycle models except that the models project that the change should have taken 500,000 years (Henry’s law?) and it actually took only 50,000 years.”
One could assume that the atmosphere and ocean equilibrated for CO2 then as now in about a millenium and that the ratio of pCO2 and benthic concentration (data are all over the map but let’s say 15% more in the deep ocean) was also the same. The remaining variable is temperature.
peterg says:
October 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm
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.
Yes, but very limited: 16 ppmv/°C, nothing more, at equilibrium as can be derived from the solubility curve of CO2 in seawater, or ~18 ppmv for the warming oceans during the period in question. Thus not responsible for the CO2 increase from 770 to 1130 ppmv as estimated from the sediments. That allows us to estimate the effect of CO2 on temperature, as far as no other positive and negative driving forces and feedbacks are at work. Which is the big question…
gymnosperm says:
October 6, 2012 at 11:41 pm
One could assume that the atmosphere and ocean equilibrated for CO2 then as now in about a millenium
The millenium equilibrium is only for a small part of the deep oceans: where the THC is passing. To equilibrate the whole deep oceans with the atmosphere (including a shift of ocean currents as seen during the more recent ice ages) takes many millenia…
Allan MacRae: October 6, 2012 at 6:11 pm
“A better questions would be:
Does this 6th order polynomial have any predictive value? Perhaps you can answer that for yourself.”
Thanks for the reply.
I would say that a 6th order polynomial has absolutely no predictive value; and it has a very limited indicative value too. That is true now, and it was true in September 2008, as you now know.
OssQss says:
October 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm
“!I found this relevant to the post, so here ya go! ”
That was’nt very nice of you, QssQss ! I spendt quite some time watching the whole clip (again), and then #6 …… Shame on you!
In fact I find episode 6 even better. The talk of the little ice age…..Now, I ask all the climate “scientists” ; What caused the little ice age…. Surely it couldn’t have been humans, so it must have been naturally. And when it can cool naturally, it can warm naturally…. Or are you DENYING it?
[video link removed - clicking on it gave message it did not exist ~mod]
Comparing climate models to cell phones and wifi precision shows that Mosher is desperate enough to bring in any nonsense in support of his favourite climate models. [snip – ad hom ~mod]
As Neville has already said Prof Murray Salby’s lecture to Sidney Institute on 24 July 2012
cleary demonstrates that CO2 follows temperature and not vice versa.
[video link removed - clicking on it gave message it did not exist ~mod]
In a previous lecture Prof Salby showed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small number which arises from the difference between 2 large numbers, the amount of CO2 emitted and the amount absorbed. This migh help allay Louis Hooffstetter fears of postive feedback loop. Along with the observation that despite CO2 continuing to rise over the last 15 years temperature has not risen.
The July 2012 lecture is 40 minutes + 20minutes q&a
For the impatient I’ve put the graphs and summary of the arguement on my blog
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/increasing-co2-raises-global-temperature-or-does-increase-temperature-raise-co2/
Please pass the link to the lecture on, as the video was put on youtube as private so it can only watched by those who have the link [please post the link to the video again, but do not embed it ~mod]
I would think that the most critical part of this paper is the first line of the abstract combined with the information given in table 2.
Quote
“Climate sensitivity is a crucial parameter in global temperature modeling.”
This to me says that without accurate knowledge of the sensitivity modeling is a complete and utter waste of time. From table 2 we see that the current estimates of sensitivity vary from 0.5-9, more than an order of magnitude! It is reasonable to conclude that there is no accurate estimate of climate sensitivity, therefore no accurate modeling, therefore we can all pack up and go home after requesting that the “experts” and politicians refund all of the money they have so far wasted on combating “climate change”, to the people who unwittingly provided it.
Henry@all
I did some research trying to get some credible CO2 readings from “independent” (read: skeptic) stations but I found everything is being carefully controlled by the AGW crowd.
Most recently some clowns in the arctic reported their CO2 for the first time above 400 ppms/
the reason why I doubt it very much is because it seems that it all was carefully timed to publish those results to coincide with the story of the melting ice there, as if to show or prove there is a “relationship” between the two… My own results show severe cooling in Anchorage (which is also in the arctic?): two weather stations there show a drop of about 1.5 degrees K in the mean average temperature since 2000. Theoretically such severe cooling should have led to a drop in CO2 or at least a leveling off there, but not an increase. Normally, the cold would act as a sink for CO2:
CO2 + H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
We desperately need some independent CO2 station at a neutral location (preferably not nearby a volcano) that can take daily measurements and at the end of the month convert it to a monthly mean.
I am hoping Anthony or someone else whom we can trust will do this. We really need to be able to rely on ourselves, not those who sincerely believe the science is “settled” and who will do everything in their power to protect their jobs…..
jeremyshiers says:
October 7, 2012 at 1:12 am
In a previous lecture Prof Salby showed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small number which arises from the difference between 2 large numbers, the amount of CO2 emitted and the amount absorbed.
The natural amounts emitted and absorbed are huge, compared to the human contribution, but these are mainly throughput, what goes in goes out, without a huge change of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The effect of these flows is a net sink of ~4 GtC/year, while the human (one-way) contribution is ~8 GtC/year. The variability in the natural sink rate also is around 4 GtC/year, which is quite small for a natural process…
Further, Salby in his latest lecture is completely wrong by his attribution of the integrated temperature increase to the CO2 increase and forgetting to tell where the human contribution goes…
Steven Mosher says:
October 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm
“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.”
You mean, like here? ;
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/ed-caryl-modtran-shows-co2-doubling-will-have-almost-no-effect-on-temperature/
HenryP says:
October 7, 2012 at 3:18 am
Most recently some clowns in the arctic reported their CO2 for the first time above 400 ppms
I have serious objections against the language you use in this case. Since Keeling Sr. started with accurate CO2 measurements at the South Pole (yes SPO was first, not Mauna Loa, but lacks a few years of continuous data), the data are what they are. Keeling was only interested in supplying the most accurate CO2 readings available, only in second place in GW, which he thought was mainly beneficial in the first decades of the MLO data. The measurments at MLO started in 1959, before the global cooling scare and long before the global warming scare…
Further, there are lots of stations all over the world operated by different laboratories in different countries. Even if they all cheated over the course of 50 years, why there is nobody of the hundreds of people involved in the world objecting to this practice, even not after retirement…
——————-
What you forget is that the Arctic has a huge seasonal amplitude, thus while the global average currently is ~395 ppmv, with the fall/winter NH increase of CO2 it is possible that the Arctic levels were reaching 400 ppmv.
Normally, the cold would act as a sink for CO2:
CO2 + H2O ==> HCO3- + H3O+
Yes, but in the NH, the mainly mid-latitude seasonal changes of vegetation are more important than what is absorbed by the oceans. The Ferrel cells bring in new air from the mid-latitudes to the polar areas much faster than the absorption rate of the polar oceans…
Further, a regional decrease of 1°C in polar waters gives a decrease of 16 ppmv in regional pCO2 of the waters, thus an increase in uptake flows, but the human input is ~4 ppmv/year, of which ~2 ppmv as mass remains in the atmosphere. Thus within a few years, the human input exceeds the temperature influence.
[Snip. Policy violation, and fake email address. — mod.]
Regarding the comment by DWR54 on October 7, 2012 at 12:41 am
Please define “indicative value” in the context of this conversation.
Did you invent this term for use in this dialogue?
I googled “indicative value” and only found the term used in financial (stock trading) terminology, which would be inapplicable herein.
You attempt to speak with great authority, without having established any personal credibility.
Please share with us your track record of successful predictions in climate and energy, if you have one.
That would, of course, require references, and posting under your real name.
Hello Ferdinand.
It is the Thanksgiving holiday weekend here in Canada. Thanksgiving is celebrated mainly in the USA and Canada, and we give thanks for the many blessings that have been bestowed upon us.
Our American friends celebrate Thanksgiving about 6 weeks later than we do – in addition to their other many blessings, they are particularly thankful that it is warmer there than in Canada. 🙂
One of the specific blessings that I would like to acknowledge is intelligent, civilized people like you Ferdinand. Although we do not agree on everything, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful insights and I try to ponder and learn from them.
Happy Thanksgiving Ferdinand. Best wishes to you and your family.
Regards, Allan
Well I would also point out that in that little list just how many of those min-med-max triads there are with 95% confidence limits, and having mutually exclusive non-overlapping sensitivity ranges. Izzat some statistical mathematical definition of bullsh*t ?
And related to that subject and the value of proxy Temperatures and proxy CO2 data, and the relative timing of events., readers should check out the new Oct 2012 issue of PHYSISC TODAY on page 13 (good karma) a rather definitive statement by somebody named John Harte at the University of California, Berkeley. He gives his e-mail if you want to comment to him.
So John Harte splits the knowledge universe into “the concensus view on global warming” versus the “Deniers” with a capital D, of that view, and poo-poos the argument as “fallacious”, that such proxy data from Vostok, for example, show that Temperature rise comes before the CO2 rise that caused it.
“It is widely recognized today” announces Harte, “that temperature and CO2 are locked in a positive feedback relation to each other.”
Harte asserts; (Dr Leif Svalgaard notwithstanding,) that the sun causes it, with “weak” insolation variations, which then of course the CO2 amplifies.
One could infer from his claim, that the loop gain of this positive feedback mechanism is significant; maybe even greater than unity.
Now Harte does not explain why the Vostok data shows nowhere, the sequence of monotonic stepwise increases (or decreases) which such a propagation delayed transient sequence must contain.
It is a complete fiction that the Vostok data shows some specific CO2 rise –Temp rise response propagation delay, and then some specific temperature rise — CO2 rise propagation delay, and of course likewise fall response times. There is no discernable fixed prop delay from CO2 change to temp change; they are randomly unrelated; Only the Temp change to CO2 response delay, is anything like a fixed propagation delay; typically cited as 800 years or so.
But Harte is evidently declaring the new concensus mantra; each simply drives the other; always in the same direction; hence the positive feedback declaration; but no explanation for the complete lack of any such sequential stepwise bootstrapping in the data.
Now Harte described the causal solar insolation signal as weak (not me), so he presumably is excluding Milankovitch type orbital events, which many would consider unweak provocations, compared to 0.1% p-p solar cycle TSI changes, which Leif rightly says don’t do much.
I take Harte’s use of the perjoritive terms “Denier” and “concensus” to imply he is making a political statement, and NOT a scientific one; which seems a good reason why PHYSICS TODAY should not have published his essay.
He ends with a conjecture that ” the Vostok data suggests carbon – climate feedback could greatly enhance future warming as well.”
Since I’m in California, I’m sure my tax dollars are being used at that institution, to keep food on the table of many unemployable “experts”.
As a science (biology major) teacher, to get some good discussion going, I tell my students that the single thing we could do on Earth to increase the health and robustness worldwide ecosystems would be to double the CO2 levels in the atmosphere because it has been shown that plant biomass increases by 38% due to increased photosynthesis when CO2 is increased to 1000 ppm. Plants are the producers that form the base of almost all ecosystems on Earth, so increasing the health/growth of plants will improve the ecosystem. It is interesting to hear some students reaction to this after years of indoctrination from other teachers.
WRT the table; note Lindzen and Choi 2011 put the range at 0.5 to 1.3 also with 95 confidence from physical measurements.
It would be nice to see some real data with 95% condidence that there even IS a logarithmic relationship between CO2 abundance and global temperature.
T = T,0 + CS* log2( CO2 / CO2,0)
If you can’t figure out the nomenclature, go watch “The View” or some other suitable time eating entity.
For me personally, I believe the entire concept of climate sensitivity is total horse pucky; both real data observationally, and on pure physical theoretical grounds.
So I really think the whole discussion is an exercise in self flaggellation.
Try fitting some real data to the form T = T,0 exp (-1/ CO2^2) or alternatively
CO2 = CO2,0 exp (-1 / (T-T,0)^2) .
Of course you have to throw in some range and scale parameters to select the correct part of the function, to get a fit.
I know it fits either one of those equations either way, because, the data also fits a perfectly linear and equally unsupportable equation, and there is always some roughly linear portion on any continuous function; and you only have to equal the fit to the logarithmic and ergo exponential equation; that allegedly Stephen Schneider invented for climate sensitivity.
How many more tax dollars are going to be wasted supporting this fiction of climate sensitivity.
Ferdinand says:
The effect of these flows is a net sink of ~4 GtC/year, while the human (one-way) contribution is ~8 GtC/year. The variability in the natural sink rate also is around 4 GtC/year,
=====================================================
This is very interesting. So the sink variability equals the sink rate and some years there will be hardly any absorbtion and other years it will absorb much of the human contribution? This seems very unstable.
Allan MacRae says:
October 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“I may have read this abstract too quickly, but to me the term “climate sensitivity” assumes atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature, whereas the data I am familiar with clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and is driven at least in part by temperature.”
Yes, Petit et.al., Fisher et. al., Callion et. al;
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Ferdinand says
the data are what they are.
Henry says
well, looking at my own average data, for the drop in maximum temperatures, in degrees C per annum, (47 weatherstations= 47x38yrsx365days= 651890 results)
data are: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)
and we plot all of this, it fits best into a sine wave:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
but whatever plot you would use, you would end up showing an increase in temp. from the fifties onward and therefore naturally also expect to see an increase in CO2 from about the fifties, exactly as the Keeling curve suggests, due to the natural warming, as a result of the chemical reaction quoted before. But since 1995 we turned negative on warming, i.e. it is cooling. So, by all accounts the CO2 should start leveling off now…especially there where it gets colder.
Seeing that none of stations are reporting this they must all be clowns who think that they can fool me…..
(but they will still fool a lot of people like you, Ferdinand. Especially the timing of the reported “400” is suspicious since it “happened” at the same time when ice is reported to be at its minimum…..suggesting that there must be some”correlation”)
That is why I think it is important that skeptics get their own station reporting on CO2 (seeing that it causes so much “warming”)
The concept of “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 may be nonsense.
There is no real evidence that CO2 significantly drives global temperature.
Temperature increased from ~1850 to ~1940, as fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (allegedly) increased moderately. However, the quality of atmospheric CO2 measurements for this period is highly questionable.
Temperature DEcreased from ~1940 to ~1975, even as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased moderately. CO2 even decreased in some 12-month intervals, such as 3 of 12 such intervals in 1965 and 3 of 12 again in 1974.
Temperature increased again from ~1975 to ~2000, as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased strongly.
Temperatures have remained FLAT or DEcreased slightly since ~2000, even as fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased strongly and atmospheric CO2 increased strongly.
For the period since 1940, when fossil fuel combustion strongly accelerated, there have been about 25 years of global warming and about 47 years of global cooling or absence of warming.
Based on this data, the logical conclusion is that the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 on global warming is insignificant.
Nevertheless, a trillion dollars has been squandered based on global warming hysteria, with no credible supporting data.
Electrical grids have been degraded by nonsensical wind and solar power schemes, and world food production has been disrupted through food-to-fuel nonsense.
Malaria has destroyed the lives of tens of millions due to the vilification of DDT.
In summary, the environmental movement has become one of the most dishonest and destructive groups on Earth.
The greatest victims of the corrupt environmental movement are the poor of the world.
The remaining question is whether is destruction is deliberate or not.
________________
http://www.green-agenda.com
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
-Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
-Professor Maurice King
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation