From the University of South Carolina, comes this paper that offers strong evidence of ‘rapid climate change’ occurring within less than a thousand years, with some occurring over just decades to centuries, near the same scale that proponents of man-made climate change worry so greatly about today.
Climate connections
Rapid climate change influenced marine ecosystems off the coast of Venezuela tens of thousands of years ago and was accompanied by simultaneous changes globally
In common parlance, the phrase “global climate change” is often used to describe how present-day climate is changing in response to human activities. But climate has also varied naturally and sometimes quite rapidly in the past, with implications for the ocean and its ecosystems.
This is what University of South Carolina paleoceanographer Kelly Gibson and colleagues illustrate in a recent paper, which demonstrates the influence of rapid climate change on marine ecosystems off the coast of Venezuela tens of thousands of years ago and shows how changes there were accompanied by simultaneous changes globally.
One natural expression of global climate change familiar to most people is the coming and going of what are commonly called “Ice Ages” over the past several hundred thousand years, some of which coincided with the development of modern humans. The most recent glacial period, for example, occurred from roughly 90,000 years ago until 15,000 years ago, and Homo sapiens who had mastered the widespread use of fire were around for the entire duration.
The beginning and end of a glacial period are clearly times of global climate change, but there are also periods of abrupt change in climate patterns within those periods. Gibson’s recent paper, published in the journal Paleoceanography, contributes to a better understanding of just how the oceans reflect those rapid changes.
Using core samples from the ocean’s floor in the Cariaco Basin, a body of water in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela, she measured the change in the ratio of two isotopes of nitrogen from about 35,000 to 55,000 years ago, right in the middle of the last glacial period.
Nitrogen isotope ratios can be used to estimate the change in the amount of bioavailable nitrogen over time. The various compounds containing nitrogen (such as nitrate, nitrite or ammonia) are essential nutrients for ocean life, particularly for phytoplankton that serve as the foundation of the food web. Measuring the ratio, Gibson says, can help scientists understand changes in primary productivity; that is, how much food there is for more complex forms of sea life, like crustaceans or fish, to “graze” on. And understanding primary productivity is important for understanding the changes in another compound of particular interest right now and for the foreseeable future: carbon dioxide.
“The primary producers, the phytoplankton, take carbon dioxide out of the surface waters and ‘fix’ it into a form of carbon that can sink down to the deep where it is stored,” Gibson says. “That’s one reason we care — the ocean is the biggest sink of carbon dioxide, and by looking at nitrogen isotopes we can indirectly look at what draws down carbon dioxide.”
Gibson and the team, which included her postdoctoral adviser Bob Thunell, a professor in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences in Carolina’s College of Arts and Sciences, then correlated the changes in the Cariaco Basin with changes in other markers of climate change at other sites all over the globe.
“That’s one thing this kind of research is really helpful for — showing the teleconnections in the climate system,” Gibson says. “So you see something in this one 4,000-square-kilometer basin off the northeast coast of Venezuela, but you see similar changes in the Arabian Sea and in the tropical Pacific, and you can link it all back to changes seen in an ice sheet in Greenland.
“So if ice is melting in the Arctic — you might think well, poor polar bears, but it doesn’t matter, right? It matters because you’re going to feel that effect everywhere. The global climate system is very interconnected.”
And the changes can take place very quickly on a geological, and even human, time scale.
“The climate transitions that we studied took place on millenial time scales, less than a thousand years, with some occurring over just decades to centuries,” Gibson says. “So over the course of a human lifetime, these would have been changes that an individual would experience.
“As remarkable as it is that climate can change that quickly naturally, what is even more remarkable is that some of the rates of change we’re experiencing today — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide for example — are faster than anything we’ve been able to find in the past several million years of geologic history. The climate system has the ability to respond to these rapid changes, but only to a point. The more we know about natural rapid climate change, the better we can help climate modelers forecast how climate might change in the future now that human activity is added to the mix.”
###
The paper:
, , , , and (2015), The influence of rapid, millennial scale climate change on nitrogen isotope dynamics of the Cariaco Basin during marine isotope stage 3, Paleoceanography, 30, doi: 10.1002/2014PA002684.
Abstract
Understanding changes to the marine nitrogen cycle on millennial and shorter time scales can help determine the influence of rapid climate change on the fixed N pool and its sources and sinks. Rapid changes in denitrification have been observed in the eastern tropical North Pacific (ETNP) and Arabian Sea; however, millennial scale δ15N records in regions influenced by N2 fixation are sparse. We present a sedimentary δ15N record from the Cariaco Basin during marine isotope stage (MIS) 3 (~35–55 ka). The δ15N record displays a pattern of millennial scale variability that tracks the Greenland ice core Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, with higher values observed during interstadial periods, lower values during stadial periods, and abrupt transitions in between. Conditions during interstadials are similar to those at present in the Cariaco Basin, with the sedimentary δ15N signal reflecting a combination of local processes and an imported regional signal. If interpreted to reflect regional processes, the interstadial δ15N values (average ~5.1‰) support the argument that N2 fixation did not increase in the tropical North Atlantic during the last glacial. The lower δ15N values during stadials, when lower sea level resulted in increased physical isolation of the basin, can be explained primarily by local processes. In spite of the importance of local processes, striking similarity is observed between the Cariaco record and millennial scale δ15N records from the ETNP and Arabian Sea. The apparent synchronicity of changes observed in all three regions suggests an atmospheric teleconnection between the three sites and high-latitude climate forcing during MIS 3.
Like the Iceland forests, this is yet another dog that did not bark: Evidence that whether or not human CO2 is a major factor, nothing happening to the climate today, is unusual or dangerous to Earth or the life living on it.
Agreed 100%.
Well, I would agree to the extent of 97%.
I think you meant to say 98%… That’s the consensus according to the last online article I read.
Yeah when ever was a rapid change of climate a problem for things living on this planet…..
Daniel
All day every day.
You say that all day every day.
Bob, it is called “adapt or perish”, and all life does it all day every day. We just make it look easy.
Daniel says:
…when ever was a rapid change of climate…
Where do you get your misinformation? There has been no “rapid change”. That just isn’t happening.
Global T has fluctuated by ≈0.7ºC over a century. That is about as flat as anything found in the temperature record.
What do you want? Global temperatures with 0.00º change? Explain what you think is ideal. If you can.
“Where do you get your misinformation? There has been no “rapid change”. That just isn’t happening. ”
yes there were rapid changes of climate in the past.
“What do you want? Global temperatures with 0.00º change? Explain what you think is ideal. If you can.”
ideal would be 0 Anthropogenic GHG emissions.
ideal would be 0 Anthropogenic GHG emissions
Would you like to start by setting an example ? Please.
“Would you like to start by setting an example ? Please.” not yet possible. but i am working to reduce my emissions. by CO2 emissions are so low that i already turn a profit on our Co2 tax in switzerland.
Unfortunately every time you breathe out you are putting GHG’s into the atmosphere. So I would suggest take a deep breath .. and hold it.
Daniel,
You’d have to stop breathing.
Daniel Kuhn
April 15, 2015 at 9:54 am
“ideal would be 0 anthropogenic GHG emissions.”
+++++
Would you be willing to live in a biosphere and live on what you grew with zero CO2 in the biosphere air supply? Would you be willing to live in a cave with no heat, no light, no cooking?
I dare ya.
“Would you be willing to live in a cave with no heat, no light, no cooking? ”
no, why should i have to?
my heating, light, and cooking are powered by hydro and nuclear, which means, very very little CO2.
Daniel,
So on your planet, concrete production for dams & nuke plants releases no CO2?
Interesting.
“So on your planet, concrete production for dams & nuke plants releases no CO2?”
no, i said, very very little, considering the amount of energy coming from a hydropowerstation (not a dam in my case btw) or a nuclear power plant, the amount of CO2 released from it’s construction is pretty small compared to a coal plant for example.
what i also include is that many if not most people working at those plants, drive there with their fossil fueled cars.
Does removing the SHIFT key from your keyboard help reduce emissions somehow?
Isn’t it just special how these true believers have somehow garnered 100% of their energy from sources other than fossil fuels whereas society as a whole relies on fossil fuels for about 80% of their energy?
They even have hydroelectric power without damming water in their alternate reality! How special!
“Unfortunately every time you breathe out you are putting GHG’s into the atmosphere. So I would suggest take a deep breath .. and hold it.”
the Carbon i breath out comes from the atmosphere. so it does not increase the Co2 concentration on long term.
Daniel, by definition ANY rapid change of climate is called weather.
“They even have hydroelectric power without damming water in their alternate reality! How special!”
just a little bit of google would have spared you the embarrassement
Daniel,
America’s contribution to global CO2 is already below what would have been our Kyoto quota thanks to our growing reliance on natural gas. We’ve naturally progressed from relatively high carbon, low hydrogen wood to less C, more H coal to even lower C, higher H oil to lowest C, highest H methane.
Ok, let us all know this significant source of non-dammed hydroelectric power then. Certainly this power plant has a name.
That asteroid presented a problem for quite a lot of life forms.
Daniel, on what basis do you claim that 0 anthropomorphic CO2 would be ideal.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that it is harmful. There are hundreds of studies proving the benefit of enhanced CO2.
Are you one of those religious nut cases who claim a priori that any change, if it is caused by man, must be bad?
An example of a non dammed hydroplant, not Daniels I freely admit.
&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opg.com%2Fgenerating-power%2Fhydro%2Fprojects%2Fniagara-tunnel-project%2FPages%2Ftunnel-route.aspx&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opg.com%2Fgenerating-power%2Fhydro%2Fprojects%2Fniagara-tunnel-project%2FPages%2Ftunnel-route.aspx&type=&no=2&tt=120&oid=ecef668548b02fc18057f897a71b48cd&tit=The+tunnel+route+under+the+city+of+Niagara+Falls&sigr=131o3c1os&sigi=1369p8doa&sign=10i41i2vg&sigt=103vg5ole&sigb=137r37kcm&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
“Ok, let us all know this significant source of non-dammed hydroelectric power then. Certainly this power plant has a name.”
you guys really do not know that? wow
“There are hundreds of studies proving the benefit of enhanced CO2.”
oh really? you mean only plant’s without looking at limiting factors like water and nutrients?
and what did those studies conclude about enhanced CO2 in regards to glaciers for example?
But the Sir Adam Beck diverts water from a reservoir behind a large dam. I want a single example of a commercial scale hydropower plant which does not utilize a dam at all in creating a reservoir, just not one with the generators outside of the dam. I suppose Daniel may have his own micro hydroelectric power station, but that’s not applicable for the vast majority of people on this planet.
Daniel,
It is pretty clear that CO2 at these present increased levels are associated with fewer droughts, fewer tropical cyclones, fewer famines, and more electricity that increases the quality oand lieght of human life.
Denial,
You really are the noobiest of the noobs if you don’t know that higher CO2 means that plants require less water, thanks to their stomata being able to stay closed longer.
The proof is in the pudding. That more CO2 in the air means more plant food & more growth is not theoretical. It’s a fact, ie a scientific observation. The world has visibly greened thanks to more CO2. Crop yields have exploded, esp thanks to varieties better adapted to benefit from the new, more bounteous environment for plants.
Facts are stubborn things. Anti-human crusaders such as yourself will lose because Mother Nature is even now in the process of slapping you down.
I first performed this very same experiment in 1977. And with each replication the results never varied, more biomass, healthier plants and faster growth.
If the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change industry was really concerned for humanity, they would not be wasting money and resources trying to sequester plant food.
On the assumption that Daniel and Daniel Kuhn are one and the same. Daniel, you breath out about ten times as much co2 as you breath in. You are a carbon based life form, just like virtually all life on this planet.
“I want a single example of a commercial scale hydropower plant which does not utilize a dam at all in creating a reservoir,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Birsfelden
no damm
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Birsfelden,+Schweiz/@47.5384609,7.6368668,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4791b77f31f46e8d:0x400ff8840191840
and hydro is not for the whole world and i never claiemd it is…..
“On the assumption that Daniel and Daniel Kuhn are one and the same. Daniel, you breath out about ten times as much co2 as you breath in. You are a carbon based life form, just like virtually all life on this planet.”
so?
“You really are the noobiest of the noobs if you don’t know that higher CO2 means that plants require less water, thanks to their stomata being able to stay closed longer.”
just because i do not fall for your nonsense, doesn’t mean i am a noob.
you really think you are the first i came across with this CO2 is plantfood nonsense?
why don0t you just post a few links to those studies you talk about and then i can take a look what they took into account and concluded?
Danoob,
That CO2 is plant food is not “nonsense”, but an objective, scientific fact. Denying that fact is beyond denial into insanity.
For all trees and most other plants, more CO2 is better, up to around 1300 ppm, as I noted. Plants take in the CO2 they need from the air. If they can get what they need more rapidly thanks to higher concentrations, then their stomata can close sooner, reducing water loss. This is the most elementary biology.
You’re clearly a hopeless case.
“For all trees and most other plants, more CO2 is better, up to around 1300 ppm, as I noted. Plants take in the CO2 they need from the air. If they can get what they need more rapidly thanks to higher concentrations, then their stomata can close sooner, reducing water loss. This is the most elementary biology. ”
i never denied that. but the concluseions you guys base on , therefor AGW is good for us, that is nonsense.
and one has to be a simpleton to think in such a naive and simplitic way of the climate system.
“i never denied that. but the concluseions you guys base on , therefor AGW is good for us, that is nonsense.”
AGW is a hypothesis, that is failing.
“According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.”
“will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%”
that is not what the report said
” a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.””
that is what the report said.
yes, and it needed not even 15 years and they already researched the discrepancy.
“According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.””
the ergo is your fantasy.
Quote:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2008.php
“AGW is a hypothesis”
it was in 1906, not anymore.
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Page 24, Middle column
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.
:He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
We are now past 18 years and counting.
You are beyond moronic Denial. You lied about what the 2008 report said, so now we can trust you no more than the models.
“You’re clearly a hopeless case.”
Obviously he is. I asked for an example of a commercial scale hydropower plant that does not utilize a dam and he gives me this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Birsfelden#/media/File:Kraftwerk_Birsfelden_vom_rechten_Ufer_2913_09_27.jpg
That sir, is a dam. It is very small, hence the station only generating a max of 100MW, but it is still a dam.
RW,
Yup.
Daniel can only be here to disrupt with lunacy.
No climate scientist doubts that plants are a CO2 sink. How then can CO2 not be plant food?
What is nonsense is not this most basic grade school level science but Daniel’s entire screechy screed.
I’m with you on ignoring the worse than worthless ignoramus.
RWturner
no, that is a lock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_%28water_transport%29
not the same as a damm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam
but i guess you know it better than the people that build such powerplants and those that own those powerplants…
go tell them that they have a damm…..
Quoting Denial:
“no, that is a lock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_%28water_transport%29
not the same as a damm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam
but i guess you know it better than the people that build such powerplants and those that own those powerplants…”
Quoting an Engineer:
“Raise your hand if you’ve heard of the Panama Canal. What about the Mississippi River? Did you know that both of these major water transportation routes—and many others!—use a special type of dam system to help boats, ships and barges move from one section of water to another when they are at various water levels? It’s called a dam and lock system.”
https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson03.xml
Another lie from Denial.
Dam!
ROFLMAO! You…can’t be….no, you really are.
when a lock is a damm, why do they say, lock and damm system?
Why not ask an engineer? You claimed it wasn’t a dam at all. And you lied about the 2008 report.
Go away fool.
“Raise your hand if you’ve heard of the Panama Canal. What about the Mississippi River? Did you know that both of these major water transportation routes—and many others!—use a special type of dam system to help boats, ships and barges move from one section of water to another when they are at various water levels? It’s called a dam and lock system.”
https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson03.xml
And the word is “Dam” idiot.
“How do we get the water to flow through a waterwheel? Fast flowing rivers are one way, but some waterwheels run off the water stored up by a dam. ”
https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_energy2/cub_energy2_lesson08.xml
also your own source thinks that not all hydropower plants need a damm…..
Strawman alert!
You claimed the photo given was not of a dam (damn is a curse, fool), now you are going on about something else, in an attempt to save youir sorry ass.
“Did you know that both of these major water transportation routes—and many others!—use a special type of dam system…”
https://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson03.xml
But what should I expect from an idiot who lies about reports.
Grow up, or go away.
“And the word is “Dam””
yes, im sorry, force of habit
” You lied about what the 2008 report said”
no, the source you quoted did.
but luckely you also quoted what the report said. so you knoew it, but posted the lie anyway.
why?
What part of what I posted was a lie?
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Page 24, Middle column
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
We are now past 18 years and counting.
Put up or shut up.
“You claimed the photo given was not of a dam (damn is a curse, fool), now you are going on about something else, in an attempt to save youir sorry ass.”
it is not considered a dam here, in the city next to the plant and in the language we use here, German.,
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet;
Enough squirning and lying. What part of this is a lie?
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
Page 24, Middle column
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
We are now past 18 years and counting.
gator69
“the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%”
is not what the report said
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
is what the report said.
see the difference? read slowly.
and you are seriously linking to dailyfail? and Jones in 2010?
what did jones say in 2011 about the significance of the trend?
but hey, atleast use the Monckton RSS cherry. its nicely picked and actually still supported by the dataset used , unlike the jones quote.
That is the same thing. How stupid are you?
The report stated, “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Ergo, “According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:”
No lie. All true, and you are still a liar, and an idiot.
Enough strawman BS.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides lying about what I said, and other than the 95% falsified models?
On second thought, don’t bother. I’m heading to the store, and could not care less what a CO2-phobic lying fool has to say anyway.
Daniel
The first link (to Wiki) you posted contains these Sentences
Chief Joseph Dam near Bridgeport, Washington, USA, is a major run-of-the-river station without a sizeable reservoir. as the caption to a photograph of a dam.
Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity is considered as ideal for streams or rivers with a minimum dry weather flow or those regulated by a much larger dam and reservoir upstream. A dam, smaller than that used for traditional hydro, is required to ensure that there is enough water to enter the penstock pipes that lead to the lower-elevation turbines
A smaller dam than traditional, is still a dam. Placing a system like this on a river and using a dam upstream is still utilising a dam
“Chief Joseph Dam near Bridgeport, Washington, USA, is”
not the plant I was talking about.
As much an opportunity for some as a disadvantage for others. Don’t be such a ready stasist. It prejudices your ability to see what may be going on.
not the same thing.
Still falsified at the 95% confidence level and still true.
Get over it.
Daniel Kuhn has just given me the best example of a first world problem.
“not yet possible (reducing CO2 output to 0) . but i am working to reduce my emissions. by CO2 emissions are so low that i already turn a profit on our Co2 tax in switzerland.”
Daniel, being a practitioner of sophistry and deception is a poor realisation of your intellectual potential. The only aspect of self that is nourished by that kind of activity, is the false sense of “I” that you were gifted as a child.
Denial,
Remedial elementary education for you about plant food. Really, this is not even junior high or middle school level science, but “our friends the plants”, grade school level science:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9VZ6i5VwCoAMPP7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTEwdWgxYXVoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVklEQzEEZ3BvcwMy?p=Our+Friends+the+Plants+Carbon+Dioxide+Animals+Oxygen&vid=a7b41cea08c26c8dc21112e4c1669f0f&l=4%3A00&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.a52aEPNLohRRm7CpY5Fb3Q%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxFE9o-c_pKg&tit=The+Carbon+Cycle%2CCarbon+Dioxide+-Cycle+%28+CO2+%29&c=1&sigr=11b6asmhm&sigt=11ed3vlot&sigi=11vf4rkki&age=1351250770&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yff50c&tt=b
Talk about nonsense! Boy, howdy!
The is the damn longest sub-thread I’ve ever waded through.
Daniel Kuhn, I like this run-of-river generation, and 94% of electricity generation from hydro and nuke is certainly exemplary. But isn’t about half of hydro power in Switzerland from dammed reservoirs? And doesn’t at least some of the run-of-river generation rely on upstream dams to provide a consistent flow?
Nutso,
I too almost laugh out loud at how far back I have to go in this thread to find “Reply”.
But your comment perfectly punctures Denial’s raving idiocy. The Birs used to have more dams than it does now, but there’s this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795212001573
Besides which the power station itself functions as a small dam, impeding the flow of the river. Can Denial really have been ignorant of these facts, whoever he, she or it actually is, most likely a paid troll?
Daniel Kuhn
It is good to be able to agree with you for the very first time.
You say
Yes, AGW is now a refuted hypothesis.
Richard
Looking below, there is no point trying to dicuss anything rationally with Daniel Kuhn. He is what I term a “Flat Earther” – somebody who believes in something despite a large amount of credible scientific evidence against it.
“Yes, AGW is now a refuted hypothesis.”
no. a few months back when i posted here, i was told most on WUWT are NOT in denial of AGW….
seems like that changed.
Thanks for the link, Catherine. Definitely a good idea to ensure your dam site won’t be sinking.
Can’t deny that Mr. Kuhn’s inciteful trolling gets a lot of strikes, even prompting one poor fish to self-identify as a big yellow bubblehead.
AGW a hypothesis “not anymore”
“AGW is now a refuted hypothesis.”
“…most on WUWT are NOT in denial of AGW…”
Someone, quick, please show proof the entire globe is warming as a result of human influences, identify all the influences, and quantify the contributions of each of them. Then do the same for non-human influences and specify the net influence we can expect throughout the current century. Provide observational confirmation. Write this up in a paper understandable to laymen and get it published.
Daniel Kuhn
April 15, 2015 at 11:03 am
“Unfortunately every time you breathe out you are putting GHG’s into the atmosphere. So I would suggest take a deep breath .. and hold it.”
the Carbon i breath out comes from the atmosphere. so it does not increase the Co2 concentration on long term.
Well, clearly whatever your profession is, it does involve even remotely any knowledge of physiology or metabolism. The “Carbon” you breath only is partially from what you inhaled. Likewise the water vapor you breath is only slightly composed of water vapor you inhaled. You metabolize carbohydrates to remain alive. By volume that metabolic process produces both CO2 and H2O – about twice as much H2O as CO2. You might argue that the CO2 fixed by the plant metabolism that produced the carbohydrate “came from the atmosphere,” but in that sense, except for possible abiotic sources, every “fossil fuel” came from the atmosphere, the delay in returning to the atmosphere is the sole difference between our morning halitosis and the exhaust from a car.
I’m not going to get into the squabble between the two versions of Daniel and those who like their hydro to be controlled by an artificial dam simply for control stability.
But I am interested in the concept of CO2 being a so-called GHG, and we all understand exactly what that means.
Now when I look at the history of CO2 on earth; that is in data we can see and maybe even believe, I see a history that starts around 1957/58; the International Geophysical Year, when the Mauna Loa Station started recording data on CO2 at about 315 ppm by atmospheric mole fraction.
Since then that source has showed a monotonous growth in CO2 by about 1 ppm per annum initially, to now maybe 1.5 ppm per annum, superimposed on which is an annual cyclic 6 ppm saw tooth with about a 7 month up time, and a five month down time.
This same data obtained for the north pole and indeed all of the arctic ocean region shows a similar annual residual, but an annual cycle amplitude of about 18-20 ppm mole fraction.
So I think we know what CO2 abundance is doing, and it clearly isn’t well mixed in the atmosphere as they claim. The south polar CO2 isn’t anything like the Mauna Loa CO2 and certainly nothing like the north polar CO2. So nyet on well mixing.
Now I have often pointed out that at 400 ppm mole fraction like we now about have, CO2 is one molecule in 2500 of the atmosphere.
That means that a typical atmospheric CO2 molecule has about 13.6 layers (spherical) of air molecules around it, before you get the the layer that contains it’s nearest neighbor CO2 molecules. I’ll let the smart mathematicians figure out how many CO2 molecules might be on that 13.6th layer.
So there is no way that you can describe CO2 in the atmosphere as a “gas”. It is an impurity of single molecules, each one of which operates entirely unaware that another like it even exists. If they ever meet, it probably scares the hell out of both of them, and they must think they just dreamt it.
Now the CO2 molecules are of course part of a gas mixture that has at every place, some local gas Temperature, Pressure, and Density, and the CO2 molecule will participate in that thermal interaction that is characterized by the local Temperature as to the mean KE per degree of freedom of each molecule as prescribed by the equi-partition principle, in the amount of kT/2 per degree.
In time any one molecule, even that CO2 molecule could occupy any single pixel out of the huge Avogadro’s Number of pixels present on the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of the actual KEs, that characterizes that particular Temperature for one mole of atmosphere.
So we could even say that the time averaged KE per degree of freedom of our CO2 molecule is the same as the average value for the whole set, and therefore the CO2 molecule can be said to have the same Temperature as the whole sample, even though strictly speaking Temperature is a large scale macro property of a large assemblage of molecules.
So now we introduce some other energy source into the picture; but this time it is not some conductive heat flow of so many watt of thermal energy, manifested by a Temperature gradient; but it is an electromagnetic wave of radiant energy, which is not “heat” or thermal energy, and has no Temperature associated with it. Well actually, there is a hwole host of such waves passing through, but the CO2 is only interested in those that have a wavelength of around 15 microns, and typically in the atmosphere it is about 13.5 to 16.5 microns range, for typical atmospheric Temperatures.
So these are long wavelength Infrared wavelengths, that originate from the surface generally imitating in some way a gray body thermal spectrum with a peak spectrum wavelength of about 10 microns, corresponding to a Planckian spectrum for a 288 kelvin ideal black body source (which of course cannot actually exist).
So some of (maybe all) the CO2 molecules will absorb a photon of this 15 micron radiation, which is at the mechanical resonance frequency of the elbow bending mode of the CO2 molecule, actually two identical modes perpendicular to each other.
So the energy of this molecular oscillation is entirely within the CO2 molecule, and does not affect the external thermal energy of the molecule, so the center of mass of the molecule keeps on doing what it was doing before the absorption. Eventually a collision with another molecule, will pre-emptively terminate this resonance oscillation, and the cO2 molecule will emit a similar wavelength photon to that which it absorbed.
Now the initial wave probably came from the surface, but it might just as well come from some other direction. The emitted photon will fly off in any direction at all, so there will be some sort of isotropic flux of such photons to absorb and re-emit.
Now the point is that all of this photonic interaction happens in extremely short time periods.
The actions are virtually instantaneous compared to the slow progress of thermal interactions with surrounding matter.
So whatever it is that CO2 or any other GHG molecule does in regard to the long wave IR radiant energy, it is an instantaneous effect, and it doesn’t take 6 months or 800 years to manifest itself.
So if the GHG effect of CO2 is to alter the Temperature, it would seem that it ought to track with the annual cyclic variations in the amount of such CO2.
If the north polar CO2 can drop by 20 ppm in just five months, it would not take long to completely get rid of any 120 ppm excess over the ideal 280 ppm atmospheric CO2 level desired by the control freaks.
Now the only problem I can see with this scenario, is that I have never seen once scintilla of data, that indicates that earth or atmospheric Temperatures, are in any way affected by changes in CO2 , which changes ought to be instantaneous, with the CO2 changes.
So I have a really hard time taking either of these Daniels seriously when he or they suggest that we need to stop any and all changes to CO2.
Why would you even try to do that, when there is no evidence whatsoever that it has anything to do with the earth or atmospheric Temperature.
There’s good reason to believe that almost nothing you could do would change the Temperature.
If the Temperature suddenly got unseasonably colder, the result would be an increase in precipitation as water vapor condensed into clouds, and rain or snow resulted.
This reduction in the cloud cover and the reduction of H2O vapor in the atmosphere, would result in less cloud shadowing of the surface, and less absorption of incoming solar radiation which is partly absorbed by H2O.
As a result the amount of solar spectrum radiant energy reaching the earth’s deep oceans, and being transported up to hundreds of metres deep, would increase, and the earth would store more heat (on land too).
As the earth warms up from the increased solar radiation at the surface, there will be more ocean evaporation forming more water vapor in the atmosphere and increasing the atmospheric absorption of solar energy.
If it gets too hot, too many clouds are formed, blocking more solar energy, and reducing the deep ocean energy storage.
The result is a tight feedback loop that can nullify the effects of increased or decreased CO2, or small changes in the TSI, or just about anything we might contemplate trying to do to change the Temperature.
The Temperature of the earth is pretty much set by the 104 degree bend angle in the H2O molecule. If you can make water molecules with a different bend angle, you can probably change the earth’s Temperature.
Otherwise forget it. The earth’s climate is entirely a consequence of the physical and chemical properties of water (probably biological as well.)
Well this is just my opinion of course. So watch out if you use any of it in your PhD dissertation. Don’t come back and blame me, if they give you an F.
G
George,
That’s one of the best explanations I’ve read. Thanks.
Thanks George. Here, IMV is the money quote.
“So if the GHG effect of CO2 is to alter the Temperature, it would seem that it ought to track with the annual cyclic variations in the amount of such CO2.”
But how to quantify that signal?? Plus 20 PPM in the dry polar region should have a measureable affect. I am guessing this takes place in the Arctic during the summer?
George, you once gave the spectral absorption of insolation from water vapor (clear sky) Do you have that handy?
“CO2 being a so-called GHG”
so called? LOL
it is getting better and better on WUWT……
George, very thorough and excellent explanation, many thanks for that!
“Why would you even try to do that, when there is no evidence whatsoever that it has anything to do with the earth or atmospheric Temperature.”
so are also the contrarian experts mistaken? or are they even liars?
Seriously, are you skeptics really taking proper, conscienscious care of Creation?
jfreed27
Yes.
Richard
Most definitely. We are making plants grow bigger and healthier. Which is also good for everything that eat plants and everything that eats the things that eat plants.
You can thank us later.
Hunter,
I think it does bark, just at something else… Note that CO2 graph down at near 200 ppm. That is starvation range for plants. At that point, the biosphere is suffering death from CO2 starvation, vegetation is sparse and doing badly, and the animals are doing worse.
No wonder Ice Age Glacials are marked by desertification. The plants are biting the dust…
Thank you for pointing that out. It is reasonable to consider that low CO2 during the depths of the glacials contributes to extinctions observed in the change over periods. The lad would tend to offset productivity minima futureward some centuries from the glacial maxima. That would in turn result in a wave extinctions that is correlated to warming but not caused by it.
Hunter, you have the evidence there, showing that exactly what is happening today has already happened
In the period in between 44.5 k years to 45 k years ago. It clearly shows what the future is going a be after that…..just keep going forward further in the bottom green graph beyond the 45 k year point.
Consider the very bottom graph as a “holocene ” extended grapf for another 8 k years in the future.
That graph is the best ever I myself have come a cross, depicting the best global climate signal of climate change.
It represent a ~20k year climatic cycle with an interglacial and a glacial period, with a clear 3C climacteric swing.
Cheers
No body yet picking up on the big mistake in my above comment reply to Hunter!
Probably no one has read it…….
Anyway if any one does please try to spot my foolish mistake above…
Thanks.
[We have read it. You have our permission to make as many mistakes as you wish.
You have our permission – and desire! – to correct any errors made by anyone.
All readers have our permission to either read, to comment about, or to ignore, anything they wish. .mod]
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Not so settled science
Waiting for the real climate “den1alists” to show up…
DO events are not new news. That they impacted at least the Northern Hemisphere is also not new news. But a millenium is not rapid. And they had nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2, so the author’s comment is gratuitous.
The warming phase of a D-O event usually took just from a few decades to a couple of centuries. They are considered abrupt changes, probably more drastic that what we have experienced in the last two centuries of warming.
Check for example Rahmstorf and Alley, 2002 “Stochastic Resonance in Glacial Climate”. Eos 83 (12): 129–135. You can get the pdf easily.
Regarding CO2 levels, the change is not abrupt if you trust Antarctic ice cores. But according to those records the Young Dryas was also a no event, while the Young Dryas (perhaps the last D-O event) change in CO2 levels appears as a very abrupt change in the stomata record according to McElwain et al., 2002 “Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records”. JOURNAL OF QUATERNARY SCIENCE 17(1) 21–29
Rud,
Any suggestion for clarification of the forcing from this (until I can find the paper): “The apparent synchronicity of changes observed in all three regions suggests an atmospheric teleconnection between the three sites and high-latitude climate forcing during MIS 3.”
As always, my thanks.
“some of the rates of change we’re experiencing today — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide for example — are faster than anything we’ve been able to find in the past several million years of geologic history”
That may be, and is easily explained, when you understand that we have been at the lowest CO2 atmospheric concentrations in over 200 million years.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
So much for peer review.
Gator
What happens to your graph when you factor in the sun?
I am discussing her claim of this contemporary rapid rise in CO2 being unusual, and her failure to look back more than “the past several million years”. So I don’t get your point, I beileve you are off topic.
Denial,
The sun becomes about one percent more powerful with each passing 110 million years, so the answer to your question is, not much.
You are correct. I am off topic. Sorry.
But what exactly is your simple explanation?
The atmosphere has for most of its history had much higher concentrations of CO2, and it is only natural that we would see a rapid rebound of CO2, after it hits historic lows. Just like the rebound of tempertaures after an ice age, or little ice age. Nothing surprising or unusual about it.
Daniel,
Are you aware that one reason that Anthony allows you to post here might be that you do such an outstanding job on making opposing arguments look so silly. There is an outside chance that you could actually be a skeptic, pretending to be an idiot troll in order to project a negative image of those that have your projected position.
Can’t say for sure but either way…………….keep it going.
“Mike Maguire”
i am indeed a sceptic.
Are you posting here as both Daniel and Daniel Kuhn?
oops yes. on my mobile is still Daniel without surname.
I think Daniel is intenitionally portraying a skeptic posing as a warmist, but in reality is a catholic imitating a warmist posing as a luke warmist in our skepticosphere. Or he is the computer from ‘War Games’. Want to play a game?
JFK lives in Vancouver by the way.
Where did I put my hat???
Daniel Kuhn says:
i am indeed a sceptic.
And the devil quotes Scripture.
@gator69 says:April 15, 2015 at 8:49 am
——-
CO2 is from a model Geocarb 3. I thought we did not believe in models here?
I thought temperatures outside the satellite era were not to be trusted – but here you plot temperatures for 600My!!
Do you have better info?
It really is amazing the lies that people can convince themselves to believe.
It’s not models that people distrust, it’s models that have proven to be inaccurate, such as the climate models.
Many of us here use models in our everyday work. The difference is that the models we use have been calibrated against reality and have been proven to produce accurate results.
The complaints about temperature have always been regarding the poor quality of the ground based sensor network. Nobody has ever declared that all proxy temperature measurements are bad. Each is evaluated on it’s own merit.
Now, do you want to stop making yourself look dumb, or are you going to report the opinions of others accurately for once?
Especially models that even Phil Jones admitted would be falsified at the 95% confidence level by now, becuase their simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more.
Or is it OK to just keep moving the goalposts?
I trust my brother, does that mean I should trust everyone’s brother?
Learn how to use logic when you debate, it is much more effective than trusting in strawmen.
“Especially models that even Phil Jones admitted would be falsified at the 95% confidence level by now, becuase their simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more.”
can you show me where Phil Jones said models are falsified at the 95% confidence level?
neither the report said falsified, nor Jones……
why do you lie about it?
“and it is only natural that we would see a rapid rebound of CO2, after it hits historic lows. ”
why? isn’t that implying that there is some sort of normal CO2 concentration over the history of the planet?
“Just like the rebound of tempertaures after an ice age, or little ice age. Nothing surprising or unusual about it.”
what do you mean with rebound? what do you mean with rebound? the warming after the increased volcanic activity decreased again? and the increase of solar activity out of the grand solar minima?
is that what you mean by rebound?
Do you have a point, or just annoying chatter?
What part of “rebound” do you not understand, “re” or “bound”?
During glacial phases, CO2 falls to dangerously low levels, almost unprecedented in earth history and possibly the lowest of at least the past 600 million years (possibly comparable during the Carboniferous/Permian Ice Age, but IMO not then under 200 ppm, as during the Pleistocene). During interglacials, the world warms up a little & CO2 naturally rebounds.
The same happens during the cooler intervals of interglacials, such as the Little Ice Age. CO2 now is naturally rebounding from the cold centuries of the LIA. Human activity is probably adding to that, but so far & for the foreseeable future, increased CO2 has been & will be a good thing for life on our planet.
From the standpoint of most plants, including all trees, an optimum CO2 level would be 850 to 1300 ppm, the latter figure as in real greenhouses. Humans unfortunately don’t have the ability to raise carbon dioxide concentrations to those ideal levels. I doubt we’ll even make it to 600 ppm, so the doubling over “pre-industrial” level assumed by IPCC probably won’t happen.
milodonharlani
sorry, i am not used to this word in this context.
” During interglacials, the world warms up a little & CO2 naturally rebounds.”
the increase of CO2 during deglaciation is a feedback to the warming which further increases the warming.
untill the orbital forcings start cooling again.
“The same happens during the cooler intervals of interglacials, such as the Little Ice Age.”
how much is that what you call “rebound” ?
” Human activity is probably adding to that, but so far & for the foreseeable future, increased CO2 has been & will be a good thing for life on our planet.”
a good thing for life on our planet? what about our species and the species we depend on?
” Humans unfortunately don’t have the ability to raise carbon dioxide concentrations to those ideal levels.”
lol we are on the way.
” I doubt we’ll even make it to 600 ppm, so the doubling over “pre-industrial” level assumed by IPCC probably won’t happen.”
that would be good. what makes you so optimistic?
Temperature rebounds coming out of cooling intervals & CO2 naturally with it. I’m surprised you’ve never read the term used thus, as it’s common & ordinary usage.
What terrible fate for humans do you imagine to have befallen us due to the increase in CO2 since the depths of the LIA & to further torment us in future? So far the gain has been highly beneficial to plants, humans & other living things. The pronounced greening of the planet since the late ’40s has been good for just about all species.
We’ve also benefited from a less stormy planet. A warmer world naturally suffers fewer & less violent storms. The colder a planet, the stormier it is, as is to be expected, since delta T from equator to poles is the primary engine of storm production.
IMO we won’t make it even to 600 ppm because natural sinks will absorb whatever additional CO2 enters the atmosphere over the next century, because there isn’t enough fossil fuel to keep raising concentrations at the present rate & we’ll switch to other sources as they become more economical than hydrocarbons. But if we do get to 800 ppm, that will be more of a good thing.
The effect of CO2 on radiative forcing is logarithmic, so doubling from 400 to 800 ppm would only theoretically increase GASTA by a negligible amount, & quite possibly not at all, given the plenitude of negative feedbacks.
I just don’t get the CO2-phobic. They base their fear on failed models, and ignore the benfits of a milder climate and greater biomass. As has already been pointed out, CO2 warming is not linear, and is nearing saturation.
“According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%.”
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
“According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.”
We are now past 18 years and counting. And I don’t want to hear from any pause deniers.
“IMO we won’t make it even to 600 ppm because natural sinks will absorb whatever additional CO2 enters the atmosphere over the next century,”
oh really? why are the natural CO2 sinks changing? why did the not take up all the additional Co2 we put into the atmosphere sofar?
“The effect of CO2 on radiative forcing is logarithmic, so doubling from 400 to 800 ppm would only theoretically increase GASTA by a negligible amount,”
well you contradict the experts on that, why should anyone take your word for it?
Daniel,
No “expert” can contradict a fact. That the GHG effect of CO2 is logarithmic is a fact, ie a scientific observation. And that a doubling from 400 to 800 ppm would indeed have a negligible effect on GASTA is therefor also a fact. The only way that CACA charlatans manage to make the increase look scary is by assuming positive feedback effects which are not in evidence.
Natural sinks don’t need to “change”, they just need time to operate. I see you still haven’t learned from the education I tried to provide you regarding sinks. Please read the work of the “Father of Global Warming” Dr. Wallace Broecker, whose assessment of the time needed for man-nade CO2 to be cleared out of the atmosphere I cited for your benefit previously.
D. Kuhn,
The temperature effect of CO2 is logarithmic:
As you can see, even if CO2 were to rise another 20%, 30%, 40%, etc., the temperature rise would be too small to measure. The chart shows that clearly.
Since you didn’t know that, you’re clearly a noob on this subject. So why don’t you take advantage of the immense knowledge base available here? Read WUWT for a few months and learn some basics, instead of parroting the misinformation and nonsense you’re getting from alarmist blogs.
You will be much better off. With knowledge you will see what a crock of horse manure the ‘carbon’ scare is.
“and is nearing saturation.”
that is what Singer (not sure it was him) said in the Q&A after the debate at the heartland conference, Spencer corrected him.
“Since you didn’t know that, you’re clearly a noob on this subject.”
LOL
dream on.
J. Peter,
The chart was prepared by David Archibald from Modtrans data retrieved by Willis Eschenbach.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Not even the most ardent & deluded CACA spewer, if scientifically educated, will argue that the direct GHE of CO2 is logarithmic. IPCC derives scary ECS only by assuming positive feedback effects not in evidence.
you guys should ask Roy Spencer to do a blog post explaining why the “CO2 levels is near saturation” myth is so wrong.
you have an expert on this board, yet you contradict even him, sad.
That is not sad, it is how science works. Real scientists question their own work. Only the religious take things on faith, and practice synchronized head nodding.
Looks like Daniel doesn’t understand how CO2 sinks work either.
BTW, Daniel, if you can find a single “expert” who doesn’t agree that the impact of CO2 is logarithmic, please name him. Even the models use that basic fact.
Approximately 95% of the radiation that can be blocked by CO2, already is.
If that’s not “near saturation”, I don’t know what is.
DB,
Showing again that skeptics are better informed than CACA regurgitators.
I should have added that the models not only assume positive feedbacks not in evidence, but ignore known negative feedbacks.
Daniel,
“Saturation” doesn’t matter. What does matter is that, as I tried to teach you, even the theoretical effect of doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppmv of dry air would be negligible, due to the logarithmic nature of the GHE.
Add to that the fact that some absorption bands of CO2 overlap those of H2O & you should be able to see that CACA is a tempest in a teapot. Or bong. Or hookah.
“BTW, Daniel, if you can find a single “expert” who doesn’t agree that the impact of CO2 is logarithmic, please name him. Even the models use that basic fact.”
i never said it was not logarithmic. that is a well knonw fact.
but that does not mean we are near saturation. that is a myth. one that has been debunked not only by warmists but also Roy Spencer for example.
“Showing again that skeptics are better informed than CACA regurgitators.”
oh mister so well informed, can you explain CO2 pressure broadening in regard to the logarithmic nature of Co2 increases?
J. Peter,
Lubos Motl has independently derived the log relationship.
The USAF’s Modtran5 is a model, yes, but highly validated & based upon demonstrated physical principles, unlike the GCMs.
But please don’t take my word for it. IPCC, the CACA bible, says the relationship is logarithmic.
If all the fossil fuels could be mined and burned, wouldn’t atmospheric CO2 rebound to levels at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period?
Nutso,
No, they wouldn’t.
It would take humanity a very long time to burn all the carbon sequestered during the Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods. In the meantime, modern sinks would be busily absorbing the CO2 released.
In short, we never, ever will use all that carbon.
“j.peter” says:
You need a better chart
No, you need some education.
I have similar charts, but why post them? They all show exactly the same thing. Here’s another:
Since “j.peter” is merely an anonymous sockpuppet, we can disregard anything he posts. For all we know, he’s a school dropout. He certainly sounds like one.
And ‘Daniel Kuhn’ doesn’t seem to believe that a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would show only a negligible rise in temperature (if that). Obviously Kuhn is far from being up to speed on the basics.
Those two are amazingly ignorant lemmings, trying to promote the man-made global warming (MMGW) scare. Their central problem is that Planet Earth isn’t cooperating: global warming stopped almost twenty years ago, completely demolishing all their alarming predictions.
But like all religious acolytes, they refuse to accept any facts or evidence that contradicts their faith-based eco-religion — not even solid empirical evidence.
“And ‘Daniel Kuhn’ doesn’t seem to believe that a rise in atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm would show only a negligible rise in temperature (if that). Obviously Kuhn is far from being up to speed on the basics.”
can you explain pressure broadening ?
“But like all religious acolytes, they refuse to accept any facts or evidence that contradicts their faith-based eco-religion — not even solid empirical evidence.”
oh sweet irony.
you know nothing about this, yet you try to play the big guy pretending to know so much. yet you are the one here that is ignoring solid empirical evidence. but i guess you just never heard of pressure broadening.
because you never questioned your believe about CO2 and logarithm.
I know of no expert that claims CO2 increse is not logaritmic. but i also know no expert that is ignorant about pressure broadening.
Daniel Kuhn says:
you know nothing about this, yet you try to play the big guy pretending to know so much. yet you are the one here that is ignoring solid empirical evidence.
I know nothing? I ignore empirical evidence?
Mr. Kuhn, you are completely deluded. I am the one always posting links to empirical evidence and verifiable facts, not you. You don’t do anything except clutter up the threads with baseless assertions.
Your arguments are inane and fact-free. You flounder around trying to support what is nothing more than a religious conviction; an eco-religion. When we post facts, rather than accept what the real world is telling us, you refuse to accept reality.
Your side has decisively lost the science debate. Therefore, the debate has morphed into the political arena, where facts and evidence are not necessary. You may even win the political debate; it’s too early to tell.
But you have lost the science debate because skeptics have produced facts debunking your original conjecture: that human CO2 emissions are a serious concern.
That has been shown to be flat wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is the case: the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and it has been extremely beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better, at both current and projected concentrations.
You cannot accept those facts, which are verifiable and proven. Instead, you argue incessantly like a mentally deranged psychopath. We see your kind regularly here. You refuse to accept reality if it contradicts your eco-beliefs.
So your arguments devolve into what you wrote above: that I “know nothing” and that I “ignore empirical evidence”. But the fact is that describes you exactly: you do not post verifiable, testable evidence. I do. Your comments indicate that you only have a superficial understanding of the subject, and that you get your misinformation from alarmist blogs.
You’ve lost the argument, Kuhn. Decisively. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Planet Earth, the only real Authority. She is busy debunking everything you believe in.
“Your side has decisively lost the science debate.”
yet that is not reflected in the scientific literature
not reflected by the scientific isntitutions around the planet
nor by the top Universities aorund the planet.
the blogosphere is not the scientific arena, blogs are not part of the scientific literature.
“You may even win the political debate; it’s too early to tell.”
considering that almost all industrialized nations implemented AGW mitigation policies, i would say we won that already.
you will end up like the 9/11 truthers, geocentrists, creationists/IDers, etc etc. for decades to come you will hang on blogs parroting stuff you do not understand.
dbstealey
can you explain pressure broadening ? and what it has to do with the logarithmic nature of CO2 increases?
@Kuhn:
Pressure broadening has been discussed here extensively. To get up to speed on tthe subject, read the WUWT archives, and you will learn a lot about it. If you want to re-hash the subject, the threads are still open.
well it seem that you are the one that needs to refresh that topic.
do you think there are regions of the IR spectrum with 100% IR absorbtion now?
This reminds me of the stupid “consensus” claims of a while back. Whatever happened to the “consensus”?
The alarmist cult kept telling us there was a “consensus”. But in reality, they are just a small clique of true believers, far outnumbered by skeptics who know that CO2 is harmless, and that it is beneficial to the biosphere.
It’s the same right here: the true “consensus” consists of far more readers than Daniel Kuhn and his stooge pals. The three of them are always arguing with everyone else.
Live by the consensus, die by the consensus. The climate alarmist crowd has been consistently wrong about everything they believe in. But they keep digging their hole deeper. Kuhn is a great example of that: always wrong, but always arguing.
So who should we believe? Daniel Kuhn? Or Planet Earth?
Because one thing is certain: they cannot both be right.
dbstealey
and brought yourself up to date on pressure broadening?
do you need more time to let it sink in?
but maybe, instead of trying to ocnvince me, you should try to convince Dr. Spencer.
when you cannot even convince the experts on your own side, how do you think you manage to convince others?
kuhn, now you’re just babbling about whatever pops into your head. Go on over to hotwhopper, they like your kind of nonsense there. Quit bothering the grownups here.
dbstealey
you do not understand it. what is why you cannot explain it. and you do not understand why it debunks your graph…..
maybe WUWT needs a Dr. SPencer blog post explaining it once again, so maybe this time also the WUWT followers will get it?
IPCC’s initial estimates of the GHE of increasing CO2 were originally too high. This paper has formed the basis for the logarithmic effect in subsequent IPCC reports:
Myhre et al., New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 25, No. 14, pp 2715–2718, 1998
I posted 3 times with links that debunk Gloria’s claim about the 1998 paper being the base of logarithmics of CO2 in the IPCC reports.
I quoted and lunked to the very firt AR from 1990.
But the posts never show up. Everytime i debunk claims with links my posts dont show up….
Very telling
My favorite line is: “The climate system has the ability to respond to these rapid changes, but only to a point.”
What, pray tell, will happen after “the point”? Oh dear, we’re about to pass “the point”!!
Alex – I believe that it means after some point, the negative feedbacks kick in and stabilise the temperature so that no matter how high GHG’s go, it never gets above 24 degrees C.
It could also mean that after GHG’s rise to a certain level and there is no corresponding rise in global temperature, the funding stops because there is obviously not all that much correlation between CO2 and temperature. That tipping point is dangerously near, apparently. Public sympathy will tilt strongly against the doom-sayers and they will find their climate cause relegated to the bucket in which one also finds the pills sold in 1910 to ward off the ‘effects’ of the Earth passing through the tail of Halley’s Comet. Snake oil salesmen had nothing on that guy!
“From Chicago it was reported that women were stopping up doors and windows to keep out the toxic vapor. In Haiti a voodoo doctor sold comet pills to ward off the evil influence of the comet, as did two swindlers in Texas who also did a good trade in leather gas masks. Purchasers were told that the pills (actually made of a harmless combination of sugar and quinine) would help them withstand the gases of the comet’s tail. Police arrested the men but were forced to let them go again when the gullible victims campaigned for their release.”
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/comet_ison/blogs/great-moments-in-comet-history-comet-halley
Comet pill vendors have nothing on CAGW alarmists. CO2 is ‘comet pills’ on steroids.
My sense is that the current Climate Modeller cabal could care less about incorporating “natural rapid climate change” somehow into their models.
– First, assuming they could even do it, it would probably lead to uncomfortable conclusions (i.e. dominate the effects of CO2).
– Second, coding it in the equations for such perturbations would like make for unstable results (excessive nonlinear positive feedbacks, etc).
No, my gut suspicion is that today’s bunch of modellers are happy with their models and outputs because they’ve got their “pet” set of equations that gives their politicized money suppliers the results they want. Any tweaking and model updates they do now will be just to drive the grid cells smaller as the supercomputers get faster (more FLOPS)., so they can claim higher resolution and higher confidence in their garbage output.
“…today’s bunch of modellers are happy with their models and outputs because they’ve got their “pet” set of equations that gives their politicized money suppliers the results they want.”
In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed guy is King.
Interesting observations, Joel. Thanks.
As I understand it, the Current Climate Modeller Cabal has no commitment to testable falsifiable climate models. Instead the CCMC just wants to maximize Big Donor satisfaction, and any similarity to science is purely coincidental.
On the other hand, this sad tale might have a bright side. A couple of decades ago, a storm raged around internet pornography. But then we realized that porn was a prime driver of internet progres. Processor speeds increased at an incredibly fast pace. The number and type of data files exploded. Storage requirements shrank to a tiny fraction of the requirements of last year’s models. Displays simultaneously grew much bigger and cheaper.
. And best of all, this stuff was coming at dramatically lower prices, as predicted by Moore’s Law. Supercomputer power on your desktop and iPhone — or injected just beneath your skull — is no longer far-fetched.
And, what is “the point”? Is it a temperature “point”, a CO2 “point”, a total GHG “point”? What is the resolution of the data that generated “the point” – annual, decadal, millenial? Nevermind. There’s just no point.
There is a point Tamara. It’s the power point. I’ll use an imaginary constantly shifting “point” to grab as power as possible. And probably your wallet as well.
🙂
Below I outline my explanation as to how the climate may change and change in an abrupt manner at times. It is often combination of factors ,which over time can bring the climate to threshold inter-glacial-glacial conditions which then cascade into an abrupt climate change while sometimes it could be due to a cataclysmic event, either terrestrial or extra-terrestrial in origin. One example of this could be the asteroid impact some 65 million years while the abrupt climatic changes taking place 20000 years ago to 10000 years ago could be the result of a combination of factors which brought the climate to near threshold inter-glacial-glacial conditions which kept the climate in an initial state which required very little additional forcing to switch it’s mode from a glacial to an inter -glacial mode.
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
. My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is, fro example the ice dynamic and the average global temperature, the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
–
Salvatore, I agree with you with practically everything. When I’m looking on temperature graph from ice cores and I see how steep is coming out from glaciation I just can’t keep out myself from thinking about extraterrestrial and extrasolar influence. Saw tooth graph of temperature last 800.000 years is best explained by another stellar body passing solar system in regular intervals. Earth in solar system is alone set to slowly cooling mode, in which we are now. CO2 sinks are storing carbon underground and decreasing number of C cycling in biosphere. There is one internal threshold, low CO2 level when life on planet is shutting down because of photosynthesis stopping to work.This is somewhere around 260ppm of CO2. After reaching this low threshold biosphere is going to free fall, plants die, impacting whole hydrological cycle plummeting temperature further down. CO2 sinks are still in work, decreasing CO2 level in atmosphere further. We end up in dry, cold, low CO2 almost lifeless world.
In this state we need external temperature impulse, most probably another star near solar system, for some time increasing available energy. Earth will jump out of ice age momentarily. Induced volcanic activity will replenish CO2 in atmosphere back above 260ppm from stored resources. Glaciers will melt and biosphere will rebound, star will pass away and we are back in interglacial cooling slowly.
“another stellar body passing solar system”
Poppycock!
If you want me to disprove this idea for you, I will be happy to.
Unless this is the heavenly body you speak of:
http://www.retrojunkie.com/celebpic/raquelwe/rw008.jpg
This article offers no explanation as to why the climate may change much less in an abrupt manner.
It only acknowledges the evidence for abrupt climatic change in the past which hurts the AGW theory cause which I am sure was not their intention.
But anything other than a “Goldilocks Climate” is a bad thing, and must be caused by humans and their bad fossil fuels. Climate Normal! (whatever that means)
Looking at the graph with the CO2 plotted along with the 18O and 15N proxies, (note: time flows “right to left” in that plot), it is clear that CO2 is lagging the temperature proxies.
Daniel Kuhn @9:54 – “ideal would be 0 Anthropogenic GHG emissions” Seriously? I missed the /sarc as that would mean you would have to stop breathing out.
ah you are correct. zero emissions is not a goos expression. we always emit CO2 by breathing.
but that does not add to the long term CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. our breathing is part of the natural CO2 cycles.
we get that carbon from plants that got it from the atmosphere and we just put it back itno the atmosphere.
0 Anthropogenic GHG concentration increase would be more accurate.
we get that carbon from plants that got it from the atmosphere and we just put it back itno the atmosphere.
Just like fossil fuels, no?
not really. fossil fuels are not part of that carbon cycle anymore, it was locked away for millions of years.
If it is organic carbon from plants, it is all part of the natural carbon cycle.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are organically store sunshine, in the form of short and long chain hydrocarbons.
Your attempt to parse the definition of the carbon cycle is social and political advocacy, not science.
Driving my car to work and grilling chops on my BBQ is part of the “natural carbon carbon cycle”
You have not made a singe good argument. Breathing is not carbon neutral…your actually taking sequestered carbon and releasing it back to the atmosphere. Time scale is the only difference. Humans and all other mammals are scum . Right?
“You have not made a singe good argument. Breathing is not carbon neutral…your actually taking sequestered carbon and releasing it back to the atmosphere. Time scale is the only difference. Humans and all other mammals are scum . Right?”
It’s an enormous time scale difference. Plants break down in months or a few years at most, whereas oil has been sequestered for millions of years and will stay sequestered unless it is pumped and consumed (same for coal). So your statement that time scale is the only difference is not correct. Plants only sequester for a very short term, whereas oil and coal do so indefinitely.
wow, the very very basics…….
and you guys have no clue about it…. sad
Mac the Knife
fossil fuels and carbon in the atmosphere are stored in 2 different reservoirs.
the plants we feed us (also inderctly via meat) with take the carbon from the atmisphere, we get the carbon from the food we ear and by breathing out, we simply put it back into the atmosphere.
digging up fossil fuels is taking carbon from one reservoir to another reservoir
Only the CO2-phobic and paid shills for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry refer to ‘carbon in the atmosphere’, it is a tell.
Sad.
oh damn, i guess the NWO will not pay me for that post then….
There is only one organic carbon ‘reservoir’ on earth. It’s called ‘Earth’.
Drop the politically motivated carbon parsing and embrace nourishing the plants with more CO2.
To which carbon are you referring? Soot and particulates?
“There is only one organic carbon ‘reservoir’ on earth. It’s called ‘Earth’.”
LOL….
At Daniel Kuhn April 15, 2015 at 9:54 am
Daniel shows his true colours in this exchange:
==========================
“What do you want? Global temperatures with 0.00º change? Explain what you think is ideal. If you can.”
ideal would be 0 Anthropogenic GHG emissions.
===========================
It is about the emissions and not about the barely measurable global warming.
Glad we got that into the open.
“Daniel shows his true colours”
O.o
what on earth are you talking about?
When you walk into a room and can’t discern who the mark is, please look in the mirror…
I caught that also.
Daniel Kuhn:
Quantify the fraction of human emissions out of total global warming. Use testable, empirical measurements.
I’ll wait here, while you trot back to Hotwhopper for some talking points about how you can’t produce any measurements…
“Quantify the fraction of human emissions out of total global warming.”
That sentence doesn’t make any sense.However, if what you’re trying to say is “quantify the percentage of global warming caused by human activity, the answer is “pretty much all of it.”
http://climate.nasa.gov/cause
SHf Your link doesn’t work. How did NASA quantify the percentage of global warming caused by human activity? Models?
SHF says:
That sentence doesn’t make any sense.
Only to you.
And:
the answer is “pretty much all of it.”
Then quantify it, numpty. I’m tired of wild-eyed assertions and hand-waving. Produce empirical, testable measurements, quantifying the specific fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions.
If you can produce such measurements, you will be the first. But if you can’t, then your hand-waving doesn’t cut it. The fact is, you’re just winging it; speculating. Assuming. Emitting your baseless opinion. Repeating a falsified conjecture. Fabricating false factoids.
Science is all about measurements. If AGW was significant, it would have been measured by now, and we would know the sensitivity number. But MMGW is so minuscule that it’s down in the noise. Current instruments are not sensitive enough to measure the tiny change in global temperature caused by a 10%, 15%, or 20% rise in CO2. We probably could not measure the rise in temperature even if CO2 doubled. That is made clear in charts based on radiative physics.
Your MMGW false alarm has been totally debunked by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth. So that dog won’t hunt. The parrot is dead.
And if you believe that NASA isn’t a rent-seeking bunch of self-serving bureaucrats riding the taxpayer gravy train, then you are amazingly gullible, naive, and credulous.
SHF, Found this-
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
‘a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there’s a more than 90 percent ‘
So conclusions but no evidence?
Conclusions based on evidence, which is apparently good enough for NASA, if not for WUWT.
SHFan
The newly-promted NASA-GISS’s head, its past head, its budget, and its future under this administration is paid explicitly to produce such a paid-for-advertisement and conclusion. There is no connection between such a conclusion from NASA-GISS and the evidence available.
here you find all you need.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
when you have a problem with it. publish your findings in the scinetific literature.
Daniel Kuhn,
The IPCC is a totally political body. It puts on a veneer of science, but it is paid for and given its marching orders by the governments that fund it. Their remit presupposes human climate change, and their job is to find whatever they can to support that notion, and to reject evidence that doesn’t support it.
Even so, when they ask questions like:
“When Will Human Influences on Climate Become Obvious…”
They are admitting that there are no obvious human influences. In fact, everything observed can be fully explained by natural variability.
If you understood Occam’s Razor, you would know that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation. No extraneous variable like CO2 is necessary to explain what we see. Natural variability is a full and complete explanation for all climate observations.
The IPCC exists because the public (including you) must be frightened, or the countries funding the IPCC will not be able to get their ‘carbon’ taxes. That is the whole purpose of the IPCC. You seem to believe that it’s about science. That’s where you’re wrong. It’s about money, and power. Science is only the pretext, and only credulous, gullible and naive people believe what the IPCC says.
“In fact, everything observed can be fully explained by natural variability.”
you should publish your quantified findings in the scintific literature.
And you should quit cluttering up the threads with nonsense.
So from Mr Kuhn’s link to WG1AR5:
“Attribution of observed changes is not possible without some kind of
model of the relationship between external climate drivers and observ
–
able variables. We cannot observe a world in which either anthropo
-genic or natural forcing is absent, so some kind of model is needed
to set up and evaluate quantitative hypotheses: to provide estimates
of how we would expect such a world to behave and to respond to
anthropogenic and natural forcings
(Hegerl and Zwiers, 2011)
. Models
may be very simple, just a set of statistical assumptions, or very com
-plex, complete global climate models: it is not necessary, or possible,
for them to be correct in all respects, but they must provide a physically
consistent representation of processes and scales relevant to the attri
-bution problem in question.”
So it’s models all the way down.
So there is no known ‘Empirical” evidence. from above- “We cannot observe a world in which either anthropogenic or natural forcing is absent, so some kind of model is needed……
IMHO a pretty big torpedo to CAGW.
PeterinMD
yes to quantify the forcings, you need models, how else would you do it? it is the same for you, when you want to explain the forcings of the late 20th century, you need a model.
how else would you do it?
Great idea Denial!
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Don’t bother responding without fully answering both requests.
The experts of the University of Istanbul confirmed that an olive tree in Mediterranean town of Bar, Montenegro (country in the SE Europe) is 2240 years old.
http://www.pcnen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/barska-maslina-foto-b92-300×149.jpg
It doesn’t appear to be suitable for the tree-ring climate research, so Dr. Mann need not be anxious.
When l look at climate change from the past. l always ask myself “what would the weather need to be doing to make this happen”. Which has lead me to think that its down to how variable the weather patterns are over time. l think climate change comes about when the weather patterns switch from a variable pattern to a more static pattern over a number of years.Then it switches back again when the static pattern brakes down and a more variable pattern takes over. This is what l believe happens during ice age.
Overall CO2 has been rising steadily at 2ppm per year.
Over the last 30 years made made CO2 has risen dramatically..
However, there has been no increase in the rate of change of overall CO2.
Global temperature has not changed by a huge amount over the last 20 years, even though man made CO2 has increased dramatically, and overall CO2 has changed significantly.
This would tend to suggest that man made CO2 is not having a significant effect either on overall CO2 or global temperature.
This would tend to indicate that lowering or increasing man made emissions is not going have any effect.
Natural forces beyond our control dominate.
oh the Salby myth has alrady infected some WUWTers….
Daniel – I did not use any of Salby’s models on any conclusions generated from his models. For instance, I did not state that man made CO2 is reabsorbed after 5-10 years as opposed to the 200 years, currently assumed.
I gave 4 facts that are in no way controversial and made 3 conjectures from these 4 facts.
Interesting how Daniel declares that hard data is just a myth.
LOL his data can be as hard as you like it. doesn0t change the facts.
“Interesting how Daniel declares that hard data is just a myth.”
Daniel lives a in a computer model – he is unable to distinguish between empirical data and computer generated data.
Hard data for him is a myth – he does not live in the real world.
well what is with the hard data that contradict salby?
@ Daniel Kuhn:
Do you really expect me to give consideration to comments from someone that can’t keep their names straight ?
Hmmmmm – looks like the “unprecedented anthropocene global warming” has ….umm…..er….. well…. precedents!
To me the two “Arctic blast” winters in North America have been a “snapshot” in some of the effects that lead to climate change. Because if this weather pattern turn up more often and extended itself beyond the winters months and moved into the spring over a number of years. Then this very likely to lead to a real shift in climate in North America at the very least.
Climate shifts would still be mankind’s fault. Or Bush’s fault.
We must be made to pay.
No these NA Arctic blasts have occurred in previous decades….In our own lifetimes. They are natural. Joe Bastardi discusses them on Weather Bell.
The concept of past global abrupt climate change is nothing new, though it is appreciated that another peer reviewed scientific paper is reinforcing its existence.
I cannot count the number of times someone has published a paper with this conclusion. Even Allie, when examining the Greenland ice cores said the same thing.
Yes and its also been shown to have had little to do with CO2.
That graph is crap.
What’s the point of this article? Nothing new here. Climate changes in response to forcings, which at the current time is human-produced greenhouse gases. And while the human race may have survived it before and can again, it’s human *civilization* that we’re going to lose.
The point is that the Earth climate changes, often rapidly, even when mankind was not around burning fossil fuels. So how do we know that the current changes are attributable to man made CO2? And not some other factor?
The climate model prediction been incorrect for over 35 years. Why would anyone in their right mind think they will be correct in the future? It’s simple madness.
But note, CO2 changes are lagging (not leading) the isotope data graphs by about 1000 to 2000 years, which are proxies for temperature from their respective locales. Just more confirmation that “CO2 lags temperature” is the message I take from that data. We already knew/know that climate changes can occur rapidly.
“So you see something in this one 4,000-square-kilometer basin off the northeast coast of Venezuela, but you see similar changes in the Arabian Sea and in the tropical Pacific, and you can link it all back to changes seen in an ice sheet in Greenland.”
The meme lives. But better said, “you can link it and changes also seen in an ice sheet in Greenland to a cause common to them all.”
The most impressive recent interval of rapid climate change (as measured by surface T) was in the early 18th century, when temperature jumped more & for a longer time than in the late 20th century or any other multidecadal cycle in between. No surprise, since the recovery then (c. 1710-39) was from the depths of the Maunder Minimum, the coldest interval of the LIA.
A very laudable effort, Mr. Daniel Kuhn, but you must by now have realised that you were talking to people who, ensconced in their certitudes, ignore the rest of the world (non-US, that is). They do not know, for instance, that the Rhöne river, and a few smaller rivers, provide us (the French) with 37 TWh of hydro-electricity a year, thanks to canals and locks (not dams), that any construction built with concrete in a river bed is usually there to stay for a couple of centuries (and thus, any CO2 emitted during the process of making cement is negligible over that period), perhaps because History started a bit earlier in our areas, experience makes us more modest. They are unaware of the fact that, sixty years ago, in France, an olive tree would have barely survided North of Lyon, unless carefully protected during the winter, nowadays, olive trees bloom in the suburbs of Paris (far from any urban heat island effect, and you can even pick ripe olives. No climate warming there, I suppose, if I am to believe them, just the effect of the increase of CO2.
Francois,
I am fully aware of the piddling amount of hydropower produced without large concrete dams. I also know that it is a little warmer now in Europe than during the LIA, thanks to natural fluctuations in the climate. I recognize further that both this naturally produced warmth and the wonderful benefit of more CO2 have combined to extend the range northward of various species.
Nothing you say has anything whatsoever to do with alleged man-made global warming, but even if it did, any such warming has been greatly beneficial.
It’s a mighty curious Frenchman that writes about the Rhöne, instead of the Rhône. It looks more like a gnome from Zürich.
Oh well, neither of them can quite comprehend that a lock and dam system is not differently conceived by engineers whose mother tongue is not English.
Maybe, when they leave silly school they’ll be engineers and they’ll have lots of fun building water-wheels on mill-ponds.
Daniel, listen up! You need a Damm to make a Schleuse.
In other words, no Damm, no Schleuse. Do you see how that works?
The Damm (we call it a dam) impedes the flow of water and,thereby, a lock is formed. If a landslide causes the dam, then the Scots call it a Loch. It’s basic; Arrhenius figured it out in 1884.
François, your story about olive trees is another warmist fantasy from someone who has no idea that Parisian gardeners know that olive trees can only stand a few degrees of frost, so they keep them in pots that they bring indoors when you’re not looking or they wrap them up in layers and layers of burlap for the winter and then cry when it turns out not to have been enough.
Fellow commenters, please stop indulging these twits with their childish one-liners!
Coldest recorded temperature in Paris: -23.9°C in 1879.
Coldest recorded temperature in Paris last century: -15°C in 1954.
Coldest recorded temperature in Paris this century: -8°C in 2013.
Looks like min temps in Paris have been rising for a long time.
“In areas where the minimum winter temperatures are between -2°C and -5°C, olive trees require no winter protection and will even tolerate drops down to -7°C for short periods, providing the daytime temperature rises sufficiently.”
—Olive tree growing guide – Big Plant Nursery
“Francois” is indeed a fishy Frenchman.
Besides which, the Rhone system includes lots of conventional dams:
http://www.industcards.com/hydro-france-rhone-alpes.htm
This company produces 14.9 TWh per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Nationale_du_Rh%C3%B4ne
Whence come the other 22-odd TWh?
nutso fasst,
A couple of trivial points;
“last century” was a span of 100 years
“this century” has spanned 15 years
A nursery is in the business of selling plants and does not generally shrink from optimistic overstatement.
You forgot something in the story
Funded by
NOAA’s World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
National Science Foundation
http://scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
So, to those of an alarmist nature, where on this graph should we All become alarmed ?
What is this? The Daniel Kuhn show? Does anyone realize that this fellow has successfully handcuffed this thread with a string of trolls? Do you think it will stop? Unlikely. Hard to fathom how a barely-literate teenager can cause so much fracas, but here it is in black and white.
Mike Bromley the Kurd
Yes, and he/she/they/it has done it to several other threads, too.
But at least the Daniel Kuhn in this thread has not resorted to its favourite practice of asserting that everyone is “dishonest” if they refute its nonsense by presenting facts and information.
Richard
There is no reason why those of us who have bothered to learn something, should tolerate the likes of Daniel. I suggest that he be moderated out, for not trying.
Catherine,
Sorry to ask you to check your facts : 37 TWh is not “piddling”, it is over a third of our total production of hydel power (the rest of our electricity, 80 %, give or take 5 %, is mostly generated by nuclear power stations). The problem on this site is that many posters never double-check their assertions : I have seen people talking about “young Europe” (meaning our good old mitteleuropa), where 10 women have, as an average, 14 children during their reproductive age, and “old Europe” (meaning Western Europe). The population of France, in Western Europe, by the way (65 million, roughly) increases by 300 000 units per year, mostly thanks to the birth rate -net migration is just a trickle. Politicians and journalists rarely bother to go to the sources of actual and up to date information. OK, that is off topic, but it is a pity.
Sorry, Francois, but where I come from, that is a piddling amount of hydro. In the US, just one river system produces more hydropower than that from its high dams. Actually, I take back piddling. But the vast majority of hydropower in the world comes from great, big concrete dams.
I sympathize with you over the demographic problems of Old, tired, worn-out, self-destroying Europe.
In the declining economy of France, it’s significant.
In the global scheme of things, it’s piddling.
BTW, I’m Catherine, commenting from another device.
To “Seasmith”,
Sorry, but I have checked with my relatives, and none could remember having any knowledge of how life was for our ancestors during the late Permian or the early Eocene. There are not even any ammonites or dinosaurs left around here to tell us. This is the year 2015, you surely know, thing are different.
There are also d18O isotopes which have proven to be very reliable proxies for temperature in the distant past. There are even International Standards for how to use these proxies to estimate temperature. Search Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water if you want to know more about this.
The climate history charts in the article at the main post are based on this proxy of course.
There are d18O isotopes which have been dated going back all the way to 2.6 billion years ago. In total, there are 40,000 dated dO18 proxies covering the periods back to this time. 40,000 reliable proxies is more than enough to make a call about this history.
When one runs the numbers in the proper way with these isotopes, one gets very close to Scotese’ temperature history. They can produce a higher resolution history than Scotese, however, which matches to a “T” the major developments in climate history that we know about from other disciplines like geology, paleontology etc.
Search Zachos and Veizer separately if you want to see the different databases of the d18O isotopes.
to François.
” ” We can determine the past climate of the Earth by mapping the distribution of ancient coals, desert deposits, tropical soils, salt deposits, glacial material, as well as the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate, such as alligators, palm trees & mangrove swamps….” ”
http://scotese.com/climate1.htm
Not my, or my family’s data, just one of many of typical non-political archeoecological studies…
Thank you for your understanding, Catherine/Gloria,
Comparing the US and France does not make sense (do I have to remind you that Texas alone is a lot larger than the whole of my country), comparing the Rhône river with the Mississipi does not make sense either. Big dams have their problems too (ask the Pakistanis, Tarbela on the Indus, Mangla, on the Jhelum, Warsak on the Kabul river are silting up at an alarming rate).
Demographically speaking, I was just trying to tell you that we are not faring too badly, when one looks at an age pyramid. Have you checked your country’s lately, and a few other ones, by the way?
To Smithsea,
How presumptuous it would be to deny the obvious fact that indeed, a very long time ago, it was quite hot on this planet (for whatever reason : CO2, orbit, drifting continents…) I think you missed the point, which is that there were not any people there then. It must have been fine for fungus, ferns, mussels and the like a few hundred million years ago, save for the occasional mass extinction, but it just so happens I inhabit the Earth now, do not feel too well whenever the temperature goes above 37°, and know for a fact that most varieties of rice stop growing past 30 something degrees.
And it is still fine for “fungus, ferns, mussels and the like”.
New Zealand (NZ) is home to many ferns, over 600 specise. The NZ Silver Fern apparently arrived over 2 million years ago. Ferns grow usually in tropical regions, NZ is temperate.
In Australia in 1994 the ” Wollemi pine” was discovered in a remote part of the Blue Mountains here near Sydney. The fossil record for this tree is claimed to be 150 million years old.
I’d say proof positive plants can handle the variation in temperature and climate quite well.
Most crops stop growing in the low 30s. There might be an effect on crops if the average temperature is 31 and not 30 but probably set off by an earlier start to the growing season and much higher CO2 levels.
That is f it does go up a degree in 100 years time.
As for yourself, have a cup of concrete and harden up. 37? We would take the afternoon off if it went over 40 but work in the Sun if it was anything lower.
Daniel gets his carbon from the atmosphere? Only by eating it in the form of plants. Which flourish when CO2 is much higher than today.
To Oisfranç
Yes, peoples are a relatively nouveau addition to the planet, but no reason to let nouvego get in the way of actual science …
Not surprising — if you want REAL climate change, go back into the mid-glacial periods where ice-sheets in the N hemisphere are far enough south to provide albedo positive feedback, and ice-shelves can bridge the Greenland-Iceland strait, blocking sea-ice flushing to the south. Result is rapid fluctuations from glacial temps to briefly near-interglacial temps and back in mere centuries or even decades — D/O and Heinrich events.
Climate changes today (especially warming excursions) cannot match those extremes ’cause the mechanisms are not present. Thank goodness for that.
The shape of the Earth libration orbit precession depends on the albedo of the planet, and not from the albedo depends on the person climat.Climate Change is a measure of the speed and one of the flags katastrofy.
Monumental Earth Changes.
1.Change shape of the Earth.”Een acute aanval van ontlastingsdrang die “ERNSTIG EN NAKEND” is.”…www.davidhanauer.com/bucscounty/rindingroks ,http://go.nature.com/w6iks3 , http://shar.es/lnJxx0
2.Change gravity http://news.discovery,com/earth/global-warming/earth's-gravity-dips-from-antarctic-ice-loss-141001.htm
3.Change precession “Earth Matters:Earth’s tilt brings big changes during seasons of the year-AltoonaMirror.com-Altoon,PA/News,Sports,Jobs,Comunity information-The Altoona Mirror” http://shar.es/1fFoSQ
4.Change orbit http://wp.me/p7y41-vDW , http://www.alphagalileo.org/View/tem.aspx?/tem/d=149399& CultureCode=en
This changes were mixed and the planet to shift the center of gravity in the Eart-Moon system which violated and violate the timing of rotation in the Earth-Moon system catastrophically rapid climate change has happened and will happen because of the proximity of the Moon to the Earth, which led and will lead to the tsunami and the earth’s happened happens at the speed of the Earth around its axis at a time/
It is a bit odd that some comments are printed a day after they have been sent, but right after the post they criticize.
To Mebbe : a thousand apologies, ( ¨) instead of (^) is just a typo -same key, you know.
Anything wrong with not being a native English speaker? So far as I know, a dam is a dam, a barrage is something else. I thought it was a Britisher who taught me that (a civil engineer, by the way, there are a lot of those in my family, so we know a number of them overseas).
Olive trees at the latitude of Paris (originally raised from seeds and cuttings from Provence (no hybrids, or genetically engineered plants), grow outside, with their roots deep into the ground, and don’t have to be taken inside or protected during the winter time. Oh, did you know that the right time for picking olives is December/January?
To Gloria : we have a few more rivers than the Rhöne in France : Rhine, Garonne, Loire, Seine etc. and their subsidiaries. I only wrote about the Commpagnie Nationale du Rhône.
To Seasmith : I did not get your point, or perhaps there was none, you just enjoy typing?
USGS volcanologist Peter Ward (retired) has shown that each Dansgaard-Oeschger warming event coincides with a dramatic upswing in the volcanic sulfate content of GISP2 ice cores (https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/abrupt-climate-warming.html). Puzzled at first at the counterintuitive implication that massive sulfate emissions should cause warming, he concluded, after several years of research, that the warming resulted not from the sulfate, which is simply a marker of volcanism, but from volcanic chlorine and bromine emissions (HCl, HBr) from quiet, effusive, basaltic volcanism (as opposed to explosive andesitic volcanism). The halogens depleted ozone, allowing increased solar UV-B irradiance, which caused the warming. From this, he further infers that the dramatic warming from 1975 to 1998 was caused by chlorine from anthropogenic CFC emissions depleting the ozone layer rather than by greenhouse warming from CO2. Since the Montreal Protocol shut down CFC production, global warming stopped, an expectable result.