From BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY and the “worse than we thought, doubling down on CO2 for Paris” department, comes this claim that we are well on our way to a hothouse Earth. Except, the study isn’t confirmed yet, by the researcher’s own admission (see end of PR). he needs more data, but that won’t stop the headlines leading up to Paris. Meanwhile, present day climate sensitivity seems to be far less than 3°C, if fact there’s quite a number of papers suggesting that sensitivity to CO2 is lower than IPCC model predictions.
Study: Earth’s climate more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought
Return to hothouse climate may take less carbon dioxide than expected
A team of Binghamton University researchers including geology PhD student Elliot A. Jagniecki and professors Tim Lowenstein, David Jenkins and Robert Demicco examined nahcolite crystals found in Colorado’s Green River Formation, formed 50 million years old during a hothouse climate. They found that CO2 levels during this time may have been as low as 680 parts per million (ppm), nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous experiments. The new data suggests that past predictions significantly underestimate the impact of greenhouse warming and that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide than was once thought, said Lowenstein.
“The significance of this is that CO2 50 million years ago may not have been as high as we once thought it was, but the climate back then was significantly warmer than it is today,” said Lowenstein.”
CO2 levels in the atmosphere today have reached 400 ppm. According to current projections, doubling the CO2 will result in a rise in the global average temperature of 3 degrees Centigrade. This new research suggests that the effects of CO2 on global warming may be underestimated.
“Take notice that carbon dioxide 50 million years ago may not have been as high as we once thought it was. We may reach that level in the next century, and so the climate change from that increase could be pretty severe, pretty dramatic. CO2 and other climate forcings may be more important for global warming than we realized.”
The only direct measurement of carbon dioxide is from ice cores, which only go back less than 1 million years. Lowenstein and his team are trying to develop ways to estimate ancient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using indirect proxies. He said that their approach is different than any ever undertaken.
“These are direct chemical measurements that are based on equilibrium thermodynamics,” he said. “These are direct laboratory experiments, so I think they’re really reliable.
Lowenstein wants to look at nahcolite deposits in China to confirm the results found in Colorado.
###
The study, “Eocene atmospheric CO2 from the nahcolite proxy,” was published Oct. 23 inGeology.
The idea of COP21 is to cut the rate of fossil fuel emissions as a way of moderating the rate of warming and the rate of ocean acidification. Therefore, the real issues have to do with sensitivity to the rate of fossil fuel emissions. They are:
1. Is the rate of warming sensitive to the rate of emissions?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870
2. Is the rate of ocean acidification sensitive to the rate of emissions?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930
3. Are changes in atmospheric CO2 sensitive to the rate of emissions?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
4. is the IPCC carbon budget sensitive to emissions?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
The studies show that historical data do not support these assumed relationships.
“David Jenkins and Robert Demicco examined nahcolite crystals… formed 50 million years old”
The crystals were already 50 million years old at the time they were formed? That would be a neat trick. Are these guys creationists? 🙂
Excellent catch!
Lemme get this straight: They found a data point with low CO2 and high T, and they think this proves that T is strongly dependent on CO2? So now even anti-correlation “proves” this laughingly-called “scientific” theory? Welcome to the new dark age.
I think the correlation between piracy and Global warming is still far more meaningful.
In fact a commenter over at Small Dead Animals suggests the best correlation is Terrorism causes Global warming.
If one treats piracy rightly as a component of terrorism, then we have an IPCC worthy correlation must be causation.Post Normal science of course.
So to prevent global warming we must wipe out terrorism.
Spreading unfounded fear of the weather is a form of terrorism.No?
Perhaps this is why the Islamist Cult and the Climate Cult both seem to be trying to kill us and our civilization.
Ergo if your ecoticians believe global warming/CC caused by too many people is the greatest evil, I guess they are more than happy to assist any means of reducing the overpopulation.
I would like to think I am being sarcastic, however the climate cult clowns seem able to slide under the ethical bar, no matter how low I set it.
They will cause problems for other researchers…..
For instance the change from mid Eocene warmth to late Eocene cooling has been attributed to the Azolla Event in the Arctic [though it wasn’t the Arctic then…no bears].
http://theazollafoundation.org/azolla/the-arctic-azolla-event-2/
It has been suggested that a massive bloom of aquatic ferns led to such a large draw down on atmospheric CO2 that it plunged the planet into an ice age.
However the Binghamton researchers suggest that the CO2 wasn’t there to be drawn down
Mind you in all of this there is a lot of …..might, perhaps, it is suggested, hypothesised, speculated, it was the circumpolar current what done it…
One thing is certain, the science is not settled-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
This sort of nonsense was alway s expected … right in time for the Paris Climate Conference. These scientists should be ashamed of themselves.
What a bunch of crap!
Just another prime example of another post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy…
The paper freely admits, “These are direct laboratory experiments, so I think they’re really reliable.”
LOL! He “thinks” they’re “really” reliable…. Most other CO2 proxy projections put CO2 levels at around 2,500ppm 50 million years ago… I’m sure scientists using other proxies think their data is “really” reliable, too….
The physics shows CO2’s forcing effect is the logarithmic equation: 5.25 watts/M^2*ln(Current CO2 level/Base level CO2)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(0.5~1.0 negative cloud feedback effect)=0.5C~1C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, plus or MINUS whatever the sun decides to do over the next 85 years…
That’s what the physics and empirical evidence show CO2’s forcing effect to be…. Not some contrived, “nahcolite crystals found in Colorado’s Green River Formation, formed 50 million years ago” BS may show….
Here’s what the “worse-than-we-thought-CO2 forcing” looks like over the past 20 years, despite 30% of ALLL manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over just the last 20 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
Oh, the humanity!!!….. We’re doomed! DOOMED, I tell ya!
CAGW has become a much deserved laughingstock
This researchs shows only one thing:: CO2 has nothing to do with temperature.
The alternative, and obvious, explanation is that CO2 is not, and was not, a climate driver and that the hot house” conditions were caused by something completely different. For instance the much smaller landmass at the South Pole.
“They found that CO2 levels during this time may have been as low as 680 parts per million (ppm), nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous experiments.”
Their knowledge of climate science is only exceeded by their skills in arithmetic. Since when is 680 nearly half of 1125?
I wonder how these Birmingham researchers explain how CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data.
The biosphere is now starved of life-giving CO2:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
[click in chart to effect embiggination. Current era on right side of chart.]
The harmless, beneficial trace gas CO2 is essential to all life on earth, but it is now lower than it has been throughout geologic history. And as pointed out by several readers here, there is zero corellation between CO2 and global T.
On the timescale you’re talking about it correlates well with the evolution of land plants, most recently the C4 and Cam plants.
Multiple stomata studies and other techniques have given comparatively results. Nothing new here.
http://www.ajsonline.org/content/311/1/63/F1.large.jpg
The problem here is that the general results show rising CO2 and decresing temperatures througout the Eocene. So that sensitivity claim is totally bogus.
Stomata. Really? The tea leaves of climate science. Good for a séance and not much else.
Another possibility is that CO2 has little impact on climate and something else was the cause of the “hothouse” earth.
A piece of rock…. Well, that convinces me we’re all gonna roast from driving cars, turning on lights & keeping our houses from freezing.
/sarc for the clueless
All these predictions fundamentally assume CO2 is the control knob. History also tells us its not and that CO2 levels follow the temperature changes. So the very basis for their claim is shaky to begin with.
Every change of temperature requires an input of Energy=Work=Heat Quantity, all measured in joule or kWh. Unless and until we start accounting for energy in energy terms, we are only talking about ‘hot wind’ or ‘flying pigs’ or ‘kg of phlogiston’ . A read of this way of looking at the climate conundrum may help: http://tinyurl.com/qjxakew
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011. In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)
Mike Hohmann November 17, 2015 at 2:22 pm
“Unless and until we start accounting for energy in energy terms,…”
Like this?
First off a discussion of units.
A watt is a metric unit of power, energy over time, not energy per se. The metric energy unit is the joule, English energy unit is the Btu. A watt is 3.412 Btu per English hour or 3.600 kilojoule per metric hour.
In 24 hours ToA power of 340 W/m^2 will deliver 1.43 E19 Btu to a spherical surface with a radius of 6,386 km. The CO2 RF of 2 W/m^2 will deliver 8.39 E16 Btu, 0.59% of the ToA.
At 950 Btu/lb of energy, evaporating 0.74 inches of the ocean’s surface would absorb the entire ToA, evaporating 0.0044 inches of the ocean’s surface would absorb the evil unbalancing CO2 RF.
More clouds. Big deal.
ToA spherical surface area, m^2……………5.125.E+14
W = 3.412 Btu/h………………………………3.412.E+00
ToA, 340 W/m^2, Btu/24 h……………………1.43E+19
CO2 RF, 2 W/m^2, Btu/24 h…………………..8.39E+16
Ocean surface , m^2……………………………3.619E+14
m^2 = 10.764 ft^2…………………………….1.076E+01
Ocean surface, ft^2…………………………..3.895E+15
Water density, lb/ft^3………………………….62.4
Lb of water in 1 foot of ocean………………..2.431E+17
Evaporation, Btu/lb……………………………950.0
Amount of ocean evaporation
Feet needed to absorb ToA…………………..0.062
Inches needed to absorb ToA………………..0.74
Feet needed to absorb CO2 RF………………0.0004
Inches needed to absorb CO2 RF…………..0.0044
Or maybe like this?
If the atmosphere absorbed CO2’s 2 W/m^2 RF over 24 hours and everything else were held constant the atmospheric temperature would increase 0.031 °F, 11.35 °F per year. Obviously that is not happening. This is day time heating? How many Btu radiate away at night?
CO2 Btu/ 24 h day………..8.388.E+16…….Btu
Air heat capacity…………..0.24……………….Btu/lb – °F
Atmosphere mass…………1.12E+19………..lb
Rise per day………………….0.031………………°F
Rise per year……………….11.35……………….°F
Per the psychrometric properties of moist air a relatively minor increase in relative humidity, i.e. more lb H2O per lb dry air, requires about 1,050 Btu/lb to evaporate that water into the air. That’s how swamp coolers, wet head bands, and canvas water bags work.
The atmosphere could absorb the entire 24 h ToA heat load with a 10.1% increase in RH.
The atmosphere could absorb the entire 24 h CO2 RF heat load with a 0.1% increase in RH.
ToA, 340 W/m^2, Btu/24 h…………..1.427E+19…Btu
CO2 RF, 2 W/m^2, Btu/24 h………….8.393E+16…Btu
Atmosphere mass…………………………5.100E+18…kg
Atmosphere mass…………………………1.124E+19…lb
ToA, Btu/lb……………………………………1.269E+00..Btu/lb
CO2 RF, Btu/lb………………………………7.467E-03…Btu/lb
60 °F DB, RH 50%………………………..2.038E+01..Btu/lb
ToA new h…………………………………….2.165E+01…Btu/lb
ToA new RH, %…………………………..60.60…………%
CO2 RF new h……………………………….2.039E+01…Btu/lb
CO2 RF new RH…………………………….50.10…………%
This change in RH is not caused not controlled by man (not that any of it is) and IPCC GCMs ignore RH or consider it invariant. Such assumptions make climate science easy peasy.
Funny, as even the IPCC had to objectively lower its own estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity in light of recent (the last 30 years) temperature readings.