Dueling press releases – one says GHG's 'caused' end of last ice age, other says 'lead factor'

I noticed these press releases for the new “ramp up to Paris” paper at Eurekalert today. One is from Boston College, the other is from Oregon State University. The headlines seem about as far apart as the schools themselves.

You’d think that authors of the same paper could get their PR straight.

GHG-cause-duel

The certainty of the theory as they present it is typical of alarmist PR’s but the conclusion, trying to link boulder deposition to CO2 levels seems a bit rocky at best. They claim to be able to resolve when boulders were uncovered from ice and link that to CO2 levels, and thus prove CO2 levels caused the end of the ice age. Of course, nether press release tells you the paper title, the DOI, or links to the journal, because as we’ve seen so many times, the paper itself is just a ticket to media coverage, and isn’t important enough to be part of the story that will be foisted upon the public.  I’ve posted both of them below for comparison in the sequence presented above in the screencap.


 

As Ice Age ended, greenhouse gas rise was lead factor in melting of Earth’s glaciers

New findings have implications for recent carbon dioxide rise and melting glaciers

Improved dating methods reveal that the rise in carbon dioxide levels was the primary cause of the simultaneous melting of glaciers around the globe during the last Ice Age. The new finding has implications for rising levels of man-made greenhouse gases and retreating glaciers today. CREDIT Courtesy: National Science Foundation
Improved dating methods reveal that the rise in carbon dioxide levels was the primary cause of the simultaneous melting of glaciers around the globe during the last Ice Age. The new finding has implications for rising levels of man-made greenhouse gases and retreating glaciers today.Courtesy: National Science Foundation

BOSTON COLLEGE

Chestnut Hill, MA (Aug. 21, 2015) – A fresh look at some old rocks has solved a crucial mystery of the last Ice Age, yielding an important new finding that connects to the global retreat of glaciers caused by climate change today, according to a new study by a team of climate scientists.

For decades, researchers examining the glacial meltdown that ended 11,000 years ago took into account a number of contributing factors, particularly regional influences such as solar radiation, ice sheets and ocean currents.

But a reexamination of more than 1,000 previously studied glacial boulders has produced a more accurate timetable for the pre-historic meltdown and pinpoints the rise in carbon dioxide – then naturally occurring – as the primary driving factor in the simultaneous global retreat of glaciers at the close of the last Ice Age, the researchers report in the journal Nature Communications.

“Glaciers are very sensitive to temperature. When you get the world’s glaciers retreating all at the same time, you need a broad, global reason for why the world’s thermostat is going up,” said Boston College Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences Jeremy Shakun. “The only factor that explains glaciers melting all around the world in unison during the end of the Ice Age is the rise in greenhouse gases.”

The researchers found that regional factors caused differences in the precise timing and pace of glacier retreat from one place to another, but carbon dioxide was the major driver of the overall global meltdown, said Shakun, a co-author of the report “Regional and global forcing of glacier retreat during the last deglaciation.”

“This is a lot like today,” said Shakun. “In any given decade you can always find some areas where glaciers are holding steady or even advancing, but the big picture across the world and over the long run is clear – carbon dioxide is making the ice melt.”

While 11,000 years ago may seem far too distant for a point of comparison, it was only a moment ago in geological time. The team’s findings fix even greater certainty on scientific conclusions that the dramatic increase in manmade greenhouse gases will eradicate many of the world’s glaciers by the end of this century.

“This has relevance to today since we’ve already raised CO2 by more than it increased at the end of the Ice Age, and we’re on track to go up much higher this century — which adds credence to the view that most of the world’s glaciers will be largely gone within the next few centuries, with negative consequences such as rising sea level and depleted water resources,” said Shakun.

The team reexamined samples taken from boulders that were left by the retreating glaciers, said Shakun, who was joined in the research by experts from Oregon State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Purdue University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Each boulder has been exposed to cosmic radiation since the glaciers melted, an exposure that produces the isotope Beryllium-10 in the boulder. Measuring the levels of the isotope in boulder samples allows scientists to determine when glaciers melted and first uncovered the boulders.

Scientists have been using this process called surface exposure dating for more than two decades to determine when glaciers retreated, Shakun said. His team examined samples collected by multiple research teams over the years and applied an improved methodology that increased the accuracy of the boulder ages.

The team then compared their new exposure ages to the timing of the rise of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, a development recorded in air bubbles taken from ice cores. Combined with computer models, the analysis eliminated regional factors as the primary explanations for glacial melting across the globe at the end of the Ice Age. The single leading global factor that did explain the global retreat of glaciers was rising carbon dioxide levels in the air.

“Our study really removes any doubt as to the leading cause of the decline of the glaciers by 11,000 years ago – it was the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere,” said Shakun.

Carbon dioxide levels rose from approximately 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million at the end of the last Ice Age, which spanned nearly 7,000 years. Following more than a century of industrialization, carbon dioxide levels have now risen to approximately 400 parts per million.

“This tells us we are orchestrating something akin to the end of an Ice Age, but much faster. As the amount of carbon dioxide continues to increase, glaciers around the world will retreat,” said Shakun.

###


Greenhouse gases caused glacial retreat during last Ice Age

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Alpine moraines such as this one in Montana have boulders that can be uncovered by melting glaciers, providing data to help study past climate change. CREDIT (Photo courtesy of Oregon State University)
Alpine moraines such as this one in Montana have boulders that can be uncovered by melting glaciers, providing data to help study past climate change. Photo courtesy of Oregon State University

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A recalculation of the dates at which boulders were uncovered by melting glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age has conclusively shown that the glacial retreat was due to rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as opposed to other types of forces.

Carbon dioxide levels are now significantly higher than they were at that time, as a result of the Industrial Revolution and other human activities since then. Because of that, the study confirms predictions of future glacial retreat, and that most of the world’s glaciers may disappear in the next few centuries.

The findings were published today in Nature Communications by researchers from Oregon State University, Boston College and other institutions. They erase some of the uncertainties about glacial melting that had been due to a misinterpretation of data from some of these boulders, which were exposed to the atmosphere more than 11,500 years ago.

“This shows that at the end of the last Ice Age, it was only the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that could have caused the loss of glaciers around the world at the same time,” said Peter Clark, a professor in the OSU College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, and co-author on the study.

“This study validates predictions that future glacial loss will occur due to the ongoing increase in greenhouse gas levels from human activities,” Clark said. “We could lose 80-90 percent of the world’s glaciers in the next several centuries if greenhouse gases continue to rise at the current rate.”

Glacial loss in the future will contribute to rising sea levels and, in some cases, have impacts on local water supplies.

As the last Ice Age ended during a period of about 7,000 years, starting around 19,000 years ago, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. But just in the past 150 years, they have surged from 280 to about 400 parts per million, far higher than what was required to put an end to the last Ice Age.

The new findings, Clark said, were based on a recalculation of the ages at which more than 1,100 glacial boulders from 159 glacial moraines around the world were exposed to the atmosphere after being buried for thousands of years under ice.

The exposure of the boulders to cosmic rays produced cosmogenic nuclides, which had been previously measured and used to date the event. But advances have been made in how to calibrate ages based on that data. Based on the new calculations, the rise in carbon dioxide levels – determined from ancient ice cores -matches up nicely with the time at which glacial retreat took place.

“There had been a long-standing mystery about why these boulders were uncovered at the time they were, because it didn’t properly match the increase in greenhouse gases,” said Jeremy Shakun, a professor at Boston College and lead author on the study. “We found that the previous ages assigned to this event were inaccurate. The data now show that as soon as the greenhouse gas levels began to rise, the glaciers began to melt and retreat.”

There are other forces that can also cause glacial melting on a local or regional scale, the researchers noted, such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, or shifts in ocean heat distribution. These factors probably did have localized effects. But the scientists determined that only the change in greenhouse gas levels could have explained the broader global retreat of glaciers all at the same time.

In the study of climate change, glaciers have always been of considerable interest, because their long-term behavior is a more reliable barometer that helps sort out the ups-and-downs caused by year-to-year weather variability, including short-term shifts in temperature and precipitation.

###

Other collaborators on this research were from the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

206 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E.J. Mohr
August 21, 2015 8:16 am

If CO2 was the cause then how do interglacials end? Rising CO2 should beget warming which in turn causes more CO2 release from warming oceans, which causes more warming, and so on.

skeohane
Reply to  E.J. Mohr
August 21, 2015 12:33 pm

Yes, why do we re-glaciate with CO2 at its highest levels at the termination of each inter-glacial period if it is causing the warming?

Mike
Reply to  skeohane
August 21, 2015 12:40 pm

Because CO2 is magic ! It causes warming and cooling. Glaciation is just another example of the extreme climate “weirdness” caused by rising CO2.
Please try and keep up 😉

sysiphus /
Reply to  skeohane
August 21, 2015 7:03 pm

The general public have no understanding whether either report is true or not. The lie is being hammered home. Economic train wreck in slow motion.

James Bull
Reply to  skeohane
August 21, 2015 11:54 pm

I remember reading and hearing that CO2 levels trailed temp changes by up to 800 years, so this paper means that the ice knows the CO2 is going to rise and therefore melts in preparation for said rise.
Now I understand???????????????
James Bull
PS CO2 is way cleverer than anyone knew!

Mike
Reply to  E.J. Mohr
August 21, 2015 12:37 pm

The press release says:

The new finding has implications for rising levels of man-made greenhouse gases and retreating glaciers today.

Really?? Is this what the paper says or just what the unqualified jerk who wrote the press release made up out of thin air?
What “implications” does the new “finding” have exactly? Does just using the word “implications” and letting the reader’s imagination join the dots count as serious science now? This crap gets worse by the day.
The earth’s climate has two pseudo stable states, glaciation and inter-glacial. I really don’t see how this “finding” informs us about what happens once we are already in an interglacial and CO2 rises.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A recalculation of the dates at which boulders were uncovered by melting glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age has conclusively shown that

Conclusively until next time they “recalculate” the dates ….

PiperPaul
Reply to  Mike
August 21, 2015 4:50 pm

…letting the reader’s imagination join the dots count as serious science now?
Well you gotta admit that there’s been decades of mass media propaganda and conditioning to get us to this point where the general populace just assumes that anything bad and nature-related must be somehow caused by humans and/or CO2.

JohnWho
Reply to  E.J. Mohr
August 21, 2015 2:29 pm

Um, didn’t it start warming first, and then CO2 began to increase?
Or was Al Gore right?

metro70
Reply to  JohnWho
August 23, 2015 7:15 am

It’s nothing new is it- just that the initial warming of unknown origin causes ice wherever it is to melt and that initial T rise causes a rise in CO2 800 or more years later- the loss of ice baring the rocks – decreasing the albedo which in turn causes more heat to be absorbed- more warming- more rise in CO2 -the global warming as earth emerges from the Ice Age or LIA.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  E.J. Mohr
August 23, 2015 9:53 am

But at least they show that rising CO2 is not man made!
If warming was caused by rising CO2 pre industrial, then it happens due to natural causes. We can’t control it.

August 21, 2015 8:18 am

Or is it: Retreat of glaciers linked to rise in CO2 ? Chicken or the egg?

MCourtney
Reply to  fossilsage
August 21, 2015 8:23 am

More land exposed means more chance for microbes to fertilise the ground up surface – More methane.
Or more grass grows sucking CO2 down. It’s far too complex to say either way.
Although the journal Nature Communications has better credibility than Nature Climate Change.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 8:41 am

which really is the point…CO2 correlated with this that or something else is not proof of any thesis. Such correlation is possibly a clue. Where was this increasing CO2 coming from?

Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 11:28 am

MCourtney,
Based on the small 13C/12C changes during a deglaciation, most of the extra CO2 comes from the (deep) oceans. If it was from the biosphere, the 13C/12C changes would be huge and anti-correlated with the CO2 increase.
What I miss in the stories is the lag of the CO2 rise after the temperature rise: about 800 +/- 600 years in ice cores. It seems to me that the temperatures did rise first, releasing CO2 and melting more and more glaciers with some lag. That both CO2 and ice melting coincide doesn’t show that CO2 was the cause of the ice melt as the temperature increase was leading…

Bryan A
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 11:32 am

Exactly what I was wondering…What caused the CO2 levels to increase from 180ppm to 280ppm or by 100ppm or 155% to bring about the end of the last Ice Age.
In comparison the current increase from 280ppm to 400ppm which is 120ppm or 142% increase.
Wait a minute, So the last “Dramatic Increase” of CO2 is less by percentage than the “Ice Age Ender” increase?
I wonder, If they were to Core down to the bottom of the remaining glaciers, How old would the Surface Time measurements be for their specific Beryllium-10 isotope covering? would it indicate that at a prior point in time, the area was de-glaciated?

OK S.
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 12:23 pm

The link to the article in Nature Communications:
Regional and global forcing of glacier retreat during the last deglaciation.

RWturner
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 1:21 pm

More science fiction masquerading as science. This period (1970-?) will be regarded as the dark ages of modern natural science. This paper is simply more evidence that the climate models do not work, instead, they conclude that the models have revealed that CO2 ended the last glacial period because other factors (insolation, ocean circulation, etc.) could not account for it.
What causes CO2 to briefly increase from 180 to 300 ppm roughly every 100,000 years and stay that way for roughly 12,000 years before again naturally lowering to 180 ppm? They don’t say.They might as well say ancient aliens.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 1:35 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen, I agree about the primary source not being the biosphere.
But I think the lack of lag may be due to the biosphere. It takes in and releases CO2 so much quicker than the larger, dominant reservoir of the Oceans.
Yes, the total atmospheric CO2 is dependent on the absorption of the Oceans – in the long term.
But in the short term I can’t see how the biosphere isn’t the controller of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 trends over a decadal – 500 year period..

Duster
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 3:50 pm

Bryan A
August 21, 2015 at 11:32 am
Exactly what I was wondering…What caused the CO2 levels to increase from 180ppm to 280ppm or by 100ppm or 155% to bring about the end of the last Ice Age.
In comparison the current increase from 280ppm to 400ppm which is 120ppm or 142% increase.
***

The best information I can find (e.g. James R. Ehleringer, Thure Cerling, M. Denise Dearing 2005) indicates that plants really don’t do well – or at all – below about 180 ppm. So, the increase could have been caused in part by fewer plants fixing carbon, enough fewer that atmospheric levels began to improve. And, since the CO2 doesn’t increase until the planet starts to warm, the warmer ocean’s would have been major contributors to the increase. I’m unconvinced that bolders can “pin point” anything much less a change in atmospheric CO2.

Ted G
Reply to  fossilsage
August 21, 2015 9:34 am

News release- “Pope says CO2 is the Devil’s Gas” CO2 Exorcism date to be set!
The end is nigh!
Massive amounts of Co2 will be expelled in Paris – 30 November-11 December 2015. In addition Methane release due to the fine foods rear exhalation. Paris could be a the start famous tipping point . Private Jet traffic jams and endless streams of elongated limos idling 24 hours a day.
This is definitely an worrisome time period for a possible climate collapse. We will know on 13 December 2015, I hope it isn’t a Friday!
The end is double nigh!

Auto
Reply to  Ted G
August 21, 2015 12:47 pm

Ted,
Have no fear.
13 December 2013 was a Friday, so 13 December 2015 will be a Sunday.
Well, not on the triskaidekaphobia fears, anyway.
A cooling Earth – something to be very afraid of, I fear.
Auto

James Bull
Reply to  Ted G
August 22, 2015 12:00 am

Auto
Our elder son managed to get triskaidekaphobia into one of his English homework essays along with macro cephalic and some others on different occasions. He would scour the dictionary looking for them.
James Bull

george e. smith
Reply to  fossilsage
August 21, 2015 11:23 am

“””””….. “Glaciers are very sensitive to temperature. ”
Well that is news.
It seems like Antarctic glaciers see Temperatures from around zero deg. C to perhaps as cold as -94 deg. C, and they don’t seem to mind that one bit.
I would say glaciers are quite tolerant of Temperatures over a wide range.
Now near or above 100 deg. C where water boils at standard atmosphere, I would not think glaciers would like that, but they clearly survive over a wide range of Temperatures.
Different materials, such as Mercury for example, are also sensitive to temperatures over a certain range. The comfortable Mercury range, overlaps the comfortable glaciers range, but they are not identical.
g

ralfellis
Reply to  george e. smith
August 21, 2015 12:20 pm

From what I saw while climbing the Himalaya, the glaciers there were more sensitive to insolation than temperature. The top layers melted and ablated while the air temperature was still near freezing, leaving a rubble-strewn surface that looked like the Moon.
R

Jared
Reply to  fossilsage
August 21, 2015 12:54 pm

I’m waiting for Stokes to tell us how this isn’t one of those papers gaming the system. Obviously this paper is very similar to the recent bio-med papers that were retracted. Pal Review in this case and self review in the bio-med journals. Correlation does not mean causation unless Pal Review turns a blind eye.

Prospector
Reply to  fossilsage
August 24, 2015 4:13 am

The lag in the rising CO2 level may be easily explained by the leaking of CO2 from active faults in the earth’s crust. The crust is not just solid rock but contains numerous fissures and cracks, many of them are discharging magmatic gases. Geologists even use the CO2 concentration as an indicator for fault mapping. Over active faults the concentration of CO2 can be in the percentage range.
During glaciation CO2 from active faults gets trapped under the ice cover and when the ice retreats the accumulated CO2 is released into the atmosphere subsequently.

August 21, 2015 8:18 am

“Our study really removes any doubt as to the leading cause of the decline of the glaciers by 11,000 years ago – it was the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere,” said Shakun.”
There it is………..because “the science is settled”, “the debate is over” and anyone that questions it is a “Denier” and we now have evidence to remove even a shred of doubt during a time frame 11,000 years ago, that just yesterday(or before this study) had tremendous doubt and many other possible factors in play.

RoHa
August 21, 2015 8:20 am

It’s been a while since I last published a paper, but I don’t recall putting out a press release about it. Or, indeed, any of my papers. (And the one which showed that, if the Ontological Argument was sound, it would imply an infinite number of gods was a cracker. It certainly deserved press attention.)

MCourtney
Reply to  RoHa
August 21, 2015 8:35 am

More than one perfect thing?
How very imperfect.

Hugh
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 9:20 am

I believe perfectness is not universally definable nor measurable. And I think gods are uncountable.

Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 9:21 am

That subtlety escaped him.

george e. smith
Reply to  MCourtney
August 21, 2015 11:27 am

I think spheres are perfect; more or less.
But then, there are no spheres anywhere to study, so maybe they do have blemishes and we would never know it. But since spheres don’t exist, it really doesn’t matter if they aren’t perfect, or if they are.
g

RoHa
Reply to  MCourtney
August 22, 2015 1:10 am

One of the points I made in the paper was that perfection is an indeterminate notion. This is a general flaw in Ontological argument. Assuming that argument is sound, it implies aleph-naught perfect beings. They would all have all the same characteristics (perfection) but be individuated by each having their own first person point of view. I also pointed out that, if we deny that fpv is a basic distinction, then the argument implies pantheism. Pretty stunning stuff, eh?
And yet no press release.
So why do these universities put out press releases for other papers?

kim
August 21, 2015 8:21 am

What? We’d still be iced up without CO2? Spread the glorious news of this wonder molecule.
=========

August 21, 2015 8:21 am

So, increased CO2 may be natural?

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 21, 2015 8:39 am

That was my question. So what caused the (apparently natural) rise in CO2? And is there enough temporal resolution to determine which came first, the rise in temps or the rise in CO2?

Reply to  pinroot
August 21, 2015 8:44 am

Maybe alien SUVs and coal-fired UFOs?

James Francisco
Reply to  pinroot
August 21, 2015 9:14 am

Slywolf–“Maybe alien SUVs and coal-fired UFOs?” That is silly. Everyone knows that they feed off wheat. That is why we have crop circles.

Reply to  pinroot
August 21, 2015 11:29 am

The meme is that vegetative matter was reduced to the point where it was insufficient to convert CO2 to plants and O2. All that rotting plant life at the terminal moraines helped increase the CO2. Apparently the rise in life near the beginning of the Cambrian caused snowball earth too! Never mind that whole Milankovitch thing.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 21, 2015 8:39 am

That´s a sly question.

Alan the Brit
August 21, 2015 8:28 am

So, what caused the CO2 to rise in the first instance, they don’t say! Reading from that I would suggest something caused warming first leading to rising CO2!

Tom J
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 21, 2015 12:29 pm

An environmental public relations firm is working on that question right now. Following confidential market research (to determine public acceptability) they will forward the answer to a university research team in the near future.

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Tom J
August 21, 2015 4:51 pm

only “confidential”? Not “secret” or “top secret” research?

Goldrider
August 21, 2015 8:32 am

A lot of “gassing,” all right!

Tom in Florida
August 21, 2015 8:33 am

Per Leif : “The use of 10Be and 14C proxies is fraught with pitfalls. The production rate may be set by solar activity [the current paradigm says the Heliomagnetic Field. HMF], but the deposition rate in the ice and wood depends on terrestrial factors, climate, geomagnetic field, and volcanic eruptions [as 10Be attaches to aerosols]. …”
I would think this pertains to boulders also.

H.R.
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 21, 2015 9:52 am

Boulders are the new tree rings, Tom.

george e. smith
Reply to  H.R.
August 21, 2015 11:29 am

They are called geodes, which is also some kind of poetry.
g

H.R.
Reply to  H.R.
August 21, 2015 1:37 pm

george,
Good catch. Yes, geodes are a particularly earthy form of poetry and not suitable for a family-friendly blog ;o)
P.S. My locale is littered with geodes from the last glacial retreat. It was popular in the ’50s and ’60s to get a couple of them, paint them white, and then at the foot of the driveway, put one on each side. I still see them guarding the driveways on older houses out in the country.

August 21, 2015 8:38 am

So correlation now equals causation as definitive proof in the science community. How low have they sunk!

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 21, 2015 12:28 pm

Exactly! How did that get past an honest peer review by actual scientists?

Ian P
August 21, 2015 8:38 am

If 280ppm was enough to end an ice age, why are there ANY glaciers left when it’s now at 400ppm?

Paul
Reply to  Ian P
August 21, 2015 8:44 am

“why are there ANY glaciers left when it’s now at 400ppm?”
Obviously thermal lag. The oceans eat up all of the warming until they’re full, ending an ice age and warming starts When the ocean begin eating again we begin cooling, that is unless our extra Hiroshima bombs per second prevents it? I just knew CO2 could warm AND cool.

Ian P
Reply to  Paul
August 21, 2015 8:46 am

Thanks, Paul (I think).

Auto
Reply to  Paul
August 21, 2015 1:19 pm

Paul,
I have it on good authority, from the Quai D’Orsay – no less – that CO2 can also walk the dog.
Methane tends to be a result, it is noted.
Auto
PS – the Quai D’Orsay is in a city where there will be snow this year end – the Gore Effect.
PPS – Mods – yeah – /sarc.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Paul
August 21, 2015 4:57 pm

Quai D’Orsay is also where Air Liquide’s head office is (they make industrial gasses, including CO2). Coincidence or suspicious? Hmmm.

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Paul
August 21, 2015 5:00 pm

Right. It takes 80 calories to melt one gram ice, and that’s not instantaneously available from a little lukewarming, especially if the oceans eat up all the warming they want first.

Tom J
Reply to  Ian P
August 21, 2015 12:31 pm

Extra tough glaciers.

August 21, 2015 8:39 am

Here is the actual paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150821/ncomms9059/full/ncomms9059.html
Correlation, causation, etc…

August 21, 2015 8:40 am

So once again they’ve ‘corrected’ previous data to get the answer they want and also…“Combined with computer models, the analysis eliminated regional factors as the primary explanations for glacial melting across the globe at the end of the Ice Age. “. There you go. 100% certainty. Well, I’m glad that’s solved. Seems they’ve been improving these methods for two decades now,too. What a grand coincidence that they finished just in time for Paris 2105! Something doesn’t smell right here.

James Francisco
Reply to  chilemike
August 21, 2015 9:22 am

I will bet that there is a good correlation with the number of these silly papers and CO2 rise. Graph lovers help me out.

Hugh
Reply to  chilemike
August 21, 2015 9:23 am

I hope they might stop before Paris 2105.

Reply to  Hugh
August 21, 2015 9:55 am

I predict there’ll be a pause after November.

george e. smith
Reply to  chilemike
August 21, 2015 11:31 am

So if you eliminate “regional factors” can we have lots of glaciers in the tropics ?
Seems like regional factors are mandatory for glacier existence.

ThinAir
August 21, 2015 8:45 am

Since when is increased insolation due to changes in the earth’s orbit and orientation only a “regional factor” and therefore unable to drive global change?
And what caused the increase in CO2 back then?

Reply to  ThinAir
August 21, 2015 8:59 am

“And what causedthe increase in CO2 back then?
A frozen ice bound NH unable to remove the slow but steady accumulating CO2 being released from insolation-driven ocean warming and volcanoes.
Insolation changes were the driving factor of course, not the following CO2. But the alarmists now seek to rewrite the scientific narrative for consumption by a science illierate public.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 21, 2015 9:00 am

illiterate (my spelling needs another cup of coffee this Friday am)

ralfellis
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 21, 2015 12:28 pm

>>Insolation changes were the driving factor of course,
But far from being the only factor. You will note in the image below that during the ice age before last, insolation rose by 10% and yet the ice age continued to deepen. Not saying that the unknown factor is CO2, of course, because the high CO2 at that same time should also have been melting the ice age.
My guess is that the unknown extra factor that modulates ice ages is a blanket of cloud cover. Not just Wilis’ tropical thunderstorms, but a great worldwide swathe of stratus. Now that would keep things decidedly cool.
http://s16.postimg.org/63v3fs8xx/Last4_Ice_Ages_Milankovitch.png

Reply to  ThinAir
August 21, 2015 9:05 am

Mammoths began eating legumes.

Reply to  verdeviewer
August 21, 2015 9:10 am

In other words, the study is missing a crucial factor. CH4 released the CO2.

Tom J
Reply to  ThinAir
August 21, 2015 12:56 pm

Only regions of the Earth must’ve changed orbits whereas other regions of the Earth must not have changed orbit.

Jon
Reply to  Tom J
August 21, 2015 4:10 pm

I can see you understand how environmental science works 😉

Bill Illis
August 21, 2015 8:47 am

This is just another one of the Shakun and Marcott type studies where they try to adjust the historical temperature and CO2 timelines to meet their climate change prophesy beliefs.
These are not the timelines of CO2 and temperature from the ice cores. All the dates are smoothed/moved by several thousand years and the amount(s) are exaggerated.

Reply to  Bill Illis
August 21, 2015 8:58 am

This IS another Shakun study. His last one was a statistical abomination. Essay Cause and Effect deconstructed it. Should never have gotten past peer review.

sysiphus /
Reply to  ristvan
August 21, 2015 7:10 pm

Sadly the damage is already done. The believers will be shouting this from the rooftops.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Bill Illis
August 21, 2015 12:35 pm

So, after adjusting recent temperatures to match CO2 levels, they are now going back to also adjust historical timelines to match CO2 levels. Is there no scientific abomination these people won’t stoop to to support their religion?

Tom J
Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 21, 2015 12:59 pm

No, there is no abomination they won’t stoop to. After all, they’re demanding that several hundred million people travel back in time and accept poverty and deprivation.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 21, 2015 8:16 pm

Tom J…

…they’re demanding that several hundred million people travel back in time and accept poverty and deprivation.

Respectfully, I think you’ve missed the mark a bit. It seems most environmentalists want about 5 billion people gone from the earth completely, not just several hundred million doing without present creature comforts and accepting poverty and deprivation.

August 21, 2015 8:48 am

http://iceagenow.info/2015/08/do-you-believe-in-climate-change/
The problem as this study and countless others have shown is CO2 follows the temperature which puts the conclusions put forth in this article dead in their tracks.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 21, 2015 9:00 am

That’s because this one uses models to get the correct answer: “We use transient simulations with a coupled global climate model (TraCE simulation21, 22, 23) to test the hypothesis that greenhouse gas forcing was the primary driver of global glacier retreat during the last deglaciation, modulated by regional variability associated with other forcing mechanisms.”

Reply to  chilemike
August 21, 2015 9:04 am

circularly tuned to CO2 models to support their premise that CO2 drove temperatures during Pleistocene to Holocene transition…. let’s disregard that pesky Y-D thingy though.

Reply to  chilemike
August 21, 2015 12:00 pm

Let me get this straight, they used models that assume that CO2 is the primary driver to prove that Co2 is the primary driver?

August 21, 2015 8:51 am

The alarmists see a world being overly warmed by CO2 at some continually sliding rightward future date.
The realists see a world being saved from another LIA by CO2. Some small fraction of which is anthropogenic CO2 and would itself be gone in 10 half-lives of decay, ~70-100 yrs if manmade emissions suddenly went zero (like the genocidal environmental movement wants).
CO2, the molecule of plant life. Water is the solvent. And our stable sun is the energy source.

Latitude
August 21, 2015 8:51 am

The whole global warming premise is rooted in runaway global warming…
..they just said it doesn’t exist

Science or Fiction
August 21, 2015 8:59 am

Here´s linkt to the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150821/ncomms9059/full/ncomms9059.html
The work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.
The word test was used just once in the paper. And as we could guess. Testing was done with a Global Climate Model.
“We use transient simulations with a coupled global climate model (TraCE simulation21, 22, 23) to test the hypothesis that greenhouse gas forcing was the primary driver of global glacier retreat during the last deglaciation, modulated by regional variability associated with other forcing mechanisms. The simulations are driven by variations in individual forcing factors—greenhouse gases (GHG), insolation (ORB), ice sheets (ICE), and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC)—as well as by all of these factors (ALL; Fig. 3). TraCE has been shown to replicate many key features of regional and global climate evolution during the last deglaciation21, 22, 24.”
Words containing: deduce*, falsify* or predict* was not ever used.
I call it fiction. Next please!
This is what Karl Popper called a scientific method:
1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.

August 21, 2015 8:59 am

The study removes any doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 is accelerating the rise in lunacy level.

Reply to  verdeviewer
August 21, 2015 8:31 pm

truth is stranger than fiction…
“Idiocracy”, the trailer…

August 21, 2015 8:59 am

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
How come run away global warming did not take place when early Carboniferous CO2 concentrations were 1500 ppm? Further if CO2 /global warming is a positive feedback how come not only did global warming not take place as the Carboniferous Period went on but glaciation occurred?
In addition why is it that when CO2 concentrations were 1500 ppm that CO2 concentrations fell to 350 ppm ?
The answer can only be that the climate started to grow colder as the Carboniferous Period advanced and CO2 concentrations FOLLOWED the down trend in global temperatures, which has always and still is the case.
How much clearer can it be?

Reed Buckhart
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 21, 2015 9:10 am

300 million years ago, the output of our sun was less.

Reply to  Reed Buckhart
August 21, 2015 9:23 am

Reed Buckhart,
The rise and fall of global T happened irregardless of CO2 levels. There is no geologic corellation between icehouse earth, hothouse earth, and CO2 levels.

Hugh
Reply to  Reed Buckhart
August 21, 2015 9:57 am

Only that CO2 was very high, up to 800-1200 ppm only 30 million years ago. No runaway warming, but many mammals developed.
The tragedy on contemporary times is not warming, it’s glaciation. CO2 came down 24 million years ago, but temperatures dropped mostly during the Pliocene, 3-5 million years ago, and they dropped several degrees.
http://people.earth.yale.edu/cenozoic-evolution-carbon-dioxide
By the way, how well this stuff is covered by Wikipedia? Well not well, mr Connolley makes sure any point which can be considered inconvenient is promptly removed by the left-wing right-thinkers.

Reply to  Reed Buckhart
August 21, 2015 11:34 am

Reed: How much less? How do we know this? Was the output less or was the planet farther from the sun?

richard verney
Reply to  Reed Buckhart
August 21, 2015 11:10 pm

300 million years ago, the output of our sun was not materially different to that of today.
The so called faint sun paradox arises in the early history of the planet. ie., say 3.5 to 4.2 billion years ago.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Reed Buckhart
August 22, 2015 10:25 am

It was more than 97% of today’s. The sun was about one percent weaker for each 110 million years one looks back in time.

August 21, 2015 9:06 am

Erase the Younger-Dryas they must.
-Yoda

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 21, 2015 10:30 am

Erase the Younger-Dryas they will!

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Gloria Swansong
August 22, 2015 10:39 am
Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Gloria Swansong
August 22, 2015 10:40 am
Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Gloria Swansong
August 22, 2015 10:44 am

Now I regret the duplication. However Shakun might say that Greenland was just a regional excursion, since it shows no accelerated warming at 19 Ka.
Well, then how about Antarctica?
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/IceCores2.gif

James Francisco
August 21, 2015 9:07 am

In the future when the ice begins to grow, scientists will be scratching their heads trying to figure out how to get more CO2 in the air.

Editor
August 21, 2015 9:08 am

Let’s ignore the fact that water dissolves less CO2 the warmer it gets and melting ice releases CO2 as it melts. Biologic activity increases as the world warms releasing more CO2. Since it was quite cold when the melting began, where did the CO2 come from? Must have been those dirty cave men building coal fired power plants. As Anthony often says, the stupid, it burns!

hunter
August 21, 2015 9:08 am

Neither report’s main assertions seem to match physical evidence from core samples.
Nor do the reports seem to reconcile that question.
Conclusion? the reports are more tripe from the failed idea that CO2 is *the* control knob

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights