Guest essay by Richard Taylor
Introduction
Our current understanding climate was influenced profoundly by the publication (J.R. Petit, et al., 1999) of deuterium (2H) measurements from metre 8 to metre 3310 of the Vostok ice-core, indicating the temperature of the nearby atmosphere from 1800 to 421000 BC. Some authorities claim, and many believe, that unprecedented climate-change has begun in recent years which threatens the very existence of human-kind. The uppermost 7 m of the Vostok core might have provided a unique perspective on this frightening claim, but the available data (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/2453) have only a mean deuterium value of -438 ‰ for this recent portion, well below the highest value in the core of -414.8 ‰.
A Russian team, however, has been active establishing a chronology of deuterium from snow-cores and -pits near the Vostok station (A.A. Ekaykin, et al., 2014). A summary (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/study/22532) with digital data became available in May, 2017. The data include annual measurements from 1654 to 2010, providing an overlap with the ice-core record that enables an assessment of present conditions from the perspective of ice-core record.
Comparison of ice-core and snow-core/pit records
The following graph shows the deuterium fractions of the Vostok ice-core sections dated 1669, 1692, 1716, 1737, 1760, 1780 and 1801. These correspond to the years 1658 through 1811 of the snow-core/pit record. Ice-core deuterium appears to be a little higher than snow deuterium, and the average for the 7 ice-core sections is 2.92 ‰ greater than the average for the 155 corresponding years of compiled snow samples.
The deuterium scale on graphs in this note is annotated in 9 ‰ intervals, as 9 ‰ / ⁰C is the basic deuterium/temperature conversion factor for the Vostok core quoted by Petit (ibid.).
Present Values in Perspective
Each core-section in the overlap interval spans 20 to 23 years, and their deuterium values show much less variability than the annual values of snow. For comparability in the following graph, the snow values were averaged into 20-year groups, with the exception of the earliest (1654 to 1680) 26-year group. Each average was adjusted upward by 2.92 ‰ as suggested by the overlap comparison.
The chart shows Vostok ice-core deuterium, along with the adjusted snow-averages, for a detailed indication of temperature from -140000 (140000 BC) to 2000. Features in the chart are the cold end of a glaciation (-139000), warming to the second-highest thermal peak in the Vostok record (-416.3 ‰ at -127374), episodic but general cooling into glaciation with the lowest value in the record of -488.3 ‰ at -22413, warming through the Younger Dryas reversal (-11000) to the Holocene Optimum (-9200), then modest but variable cooling to the present.
Carbon-dioxide (CO2) measurements from air-inclusions in the cores from the Vostok (Petit, ibid.), Taylor Dome (A. Indermühle, et al., 1999) and Law Dome (D.M. Etheridge, et al. 1996) ice cores as well as from surface air at the South Pole (C.D. Keeling, et al., 2001) provide a record of CO2 in regional air from -412000 to 2000. The chart shows the portion from -140000.
To the year -6000, changes in CO2 lag proportional changes in deuterium. The lag tends to be shortest at lower values of deuterium and CO2 and longest after thermal peaks. For example, the chart shows that the decline in CO2 from -117000 to -104000 follows a proportional decline in deuterium that occurred about 9000 years earlier. Modern climate-science contends that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that controls atmospheric temperature. Since cause must precede effect, lag shows that CO2 above the minimum level of 180 ppm in the Vostok record has no significant effect on temperature.
From -6000 on, CO2 began to rise to concentrations far beyond any seen previously in the ice-core record. The lack of any corresponding rise in deuterium over the last 8000 years indicates, again, the lack of effect that CO2 has on atmospheric temperature.
Snow at Vostok from 1990-2010 has an adjusted deuterium value of -433.7 ‰. This is 18.9 ‰ below the highest value that is for a core section representing 219 years. It is 54.6 ‰ above the lowest value that is for a core section representing 91 years. Thus, from the Vostok perspective, our present climate is about 2 ⁰C below the warmest of the last 420000 years, and about 6 ⁰C above the coldest.
Conclusions
General CO2-lag in ice-core records and the lack of warming over the last 8000 years of extraordinary increase in CO2 show that the hypothesis of significant warming of the atmosphere by CO2 over the last century is absurd. Attribution of derivative effects (i.e. “climate change”) to CO2 is, therefore, ridiculous. These fictions, the dire prophecies that attend them and the disparagement of those that question them, however, are vigorously promoted and widely accepted. They seem to be as important socially as they are false scientifically.
While recent snow at Vostok adds to the falsification of the hypothesis of “dangerous man-made climate change by carbon-dioxide, a powerful heat-trapping greenhouse-gas”, such falsification was evident in the ice-core data published in 1999 and has always been logically obvious to anyone with an understanding of the carbon cycle at the surface of the earth.
For distraction from abuse by the saviors of planets, polar bears, putative grandchildren, etc., those of us with some affection for natural science might consider what news from Vostok (or Dome Fuji or Dome C) would indicate that climate might be trending beyond the limits of the last 400000 years. Speaking personally, I would be surprised to see a 20-year average of 2H or 18O in precipitation beyond the range of the ice-core record.
References
Ekaykin, A.A.; Kozachek, A.V.; Lipenkov, V.Ya.; Shibaev, Yu.A. 2014. Multiple climate shifts in the Southern Hemisphere over the past three centuries based on central Antarctic snow pits and core studies. Annals of Glaciology, 55(66), 259-266. doi: 10.3189/201AoG66A189
Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan. 1996. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research 101:4115-4128.
Indermühle, A., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, H. Fischer, H.J. Smith, M. Wahlen, B. Deck, D. Mastroianni, J. Tschumi, T. Blunier, R. Meyer, B. Stauffer. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398:121-126.
Keeling, C.S., S. C. Piper, R. B. Bacastow, M. Wahlen, T. P. Whorf, M. Heimann, and H. A. Meijer, Exchanges of atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, 88 pages, 2001.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for the comments and suggestions.
Regarding the Law Dome, oxygen-18 data end at 1995 instead of 2010 at Vostok, and there is no clear way to link recent values to full glacial cycles. Regardless, the slope of the Law data is essentially zero, indicating no warming since 173 AD.
Recent snow from Greenland would certainly be interesting, but Greenland doesn’t provide the perspective of several glacial cycles.
Even Nick Stokes agreed with you that the Law Dome data is MUCH clearer and of higher resolution. And it shows no warming since 173 AD. Correct?
The 30 Law Dome 18O values from 1966-1995 have greater scatter relative to their mean than the 30 Vostok 2H values for the same interval, so I would say that the Vostok values are clearer. The point of my note was to extend a long-term record of temperature as close as possible to the present. This can’t be done for the Law Dome, because there is no long-term record there. And yes, the slope of the complete data set from 173 AD, at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/22476, is essentially zero.
R Taylor and others,
Law Dome δ18O or δD data can’t be used for (semi) global temperatures, as the water vapor catch area for the snow deposits is from the nearby Southern Ocean. They used the Law Dome data and other coastal cores to reconstruct the coastal en nearby ocean temperatures over the past milennia with as result that the Southern Ocean shows a sea-saw with ENSO-like ocean fluctuations. An extra was that the Peninsula reacts oppposite to the others for coastal temperature changes.
I had some link to that report, but lost it…
The high altitude inland cores like Vostok receive snow from water vapor coming from near all of the SH oceans, thus that more or less represents the average SH temperatures.
One of my favorite illustrations of the shallowness and mendacity of the warmists occurs in discussions like this thread. The knowledgeable and technically skilled skeptics demolish flimsy arguments, and then the usual drive-byers like Mosh and Stokes set forth some version of the argument that “oh, no one ever argued that ……(latest unsupportable, unsustainable argument point).” (By the way, whenever I see some controversial point about climate science, the very first thing I wonder is, “what is the failed English Lit PhD take on this? I’m sure we all feel the same way. And there’s Mosh ready to provide that take on things.)
Here are two examples. Mosh just argued:
“Modern climate-science contends that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that controls atmospheric temperature. ”
wrong”
How about this paper by Gavin Schmidt? How about that title of this paper from Science?
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
See all authors and affiliations
Science 15 Oct 2010:
Vol. 330, Issue 6002, pp. 356-359
DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653
A second example from Nick further up:
“The warming associated with the end of glacial periods was never attributed to CO2 forcing.”
Anyone see the movie, An Inconvenient Truth? The over-dramatized scene of Gore on the lift truck? Come on! Gore only argued the point all the way to an Oscar.
I suspect that Nick and Mosh would get fewer ad hominem attacks if they would refrain from this sort of BS.
Mosh hasn’t said to word to me posting the same thing along with other sources to support the claim that modern scientists do SO “contend” this very thing. I doubt he’ll respond to you either.
From -6000 on, CO2 began to rise to concentrations far beyond any seen previously in the ice-core record.
Wrong. From 6000 years ago till just before the industrial revolution, CO2 rose modestly from 260-280 ppm. The article’s graph shows this. 280 ppm is the same as CO2 levels during the previous Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago. Also simply read from the graph above.
It’s not quite that simple. There is no single ice-core that has both a good dense late Holocene series and good data from the Eemian. Those who have good Eemian data (mostly Vostok and EDC) top out at about 285-287 ppm.
Those cores that have good Holocene reach about the same level during the MWP before the marked drop in the sixteenth-seventeenth century. Some (but not all) even go very slightly higher than the Eemian values. And this was well before the industrial revolution.
I think the word “began” is reasonably clear. Was CO2 in the Vostok core at 5000 BC higher than it was at 6000 BC? Since 5000 BC has CO2 ever returned to the value at 6000 BC?
“I think the word “began” is reasonably clear.”
Well, this is clear too:
“the lack of warming over the last 8000 years of extraordinary increase in CO2”
And it’s just wrong. As the second fig shows, the increase is from about 260 ppmv to 280 ppmv.
Nick stated:
“the lack of warming over the last 8000 years of extraordinary increase in CO2” and
“And it’s just wrong. As the second fig shows, the increase is from about 260 ppmv to 280 ppmv.”
Are you kidding?
The increase in CO2 over the past 8,000 years is 140 ppm, with 120 ppm increase since 1880!!! And the years between 1880 and 2017 just happen to have occurred within the time frame of “the last 8000 years”.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
And again, according to YOU-Marcott is “mainstream science”…and Marcott’s graph…again…shows the Earth is currently COOLER than it was 8,000 years ago…AND there’s been an increase in CO2 of 140 ppm.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you ignoring facts (and math) for some other reason?
“Are you kidding?
The increase in CO2 over the past 8,000 years is 140 ppm, with 120 ppm increase since 1880!!! And the years between 1880 and 2017 just happen to have occurred within the time frame of “the last 8000 years”.
This is what Nick said…
“”And as for the last 8000 years of “extraordinary rise” mentioned, well, it wasn’t. UNTIL ANTHRO, it was a rise from about 260 to 280 ppm, not enough to cause significant warming.”
(my caps)
It is the Anthro bit that has caused sig warming.
I would like some background on the precision of the CO2 records that explains why now CO2 has increased by some 40% over 100 years whereas the CO2 has remained within an amazingly narrow range through significant temperature changes. Some of the recent increase is due to warming causing the release of CO2 from sinks.
I understand that process to some extent. However the ice core samples do [not] show such dramatic swings. I suspect partial pressures of compressed ice bubbles releasing the CO2 from the samples could explain this. However, I’d like to see a comprehensive [explanation] of the recent swing that includes the fossil fuel burning as part of the increase and perhaps a poor accounting from the ice core samples.
Mario,
The ice cores are a quite accurate reflection of ancient atmospheres with only one drawback: the resolution gets worse the further back in time.
There is even a 20 year overlap between high resolution (less than 10 years) Law Dome ice cores and direct measurements at the South Pole (1960-1980) where the measurements are within the repeatability of the ice core measurements (1.2 ppmv, 1 sigma).
There are lots of overlapping periods between different ice cores, each at different temperatures, accumulation rate and resolution: all are within +/- 5 ppmv for the same period in time.
See further: http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
Until the industrial revolution, there was a rather fixed ratio between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the ice core proxies (δ18O and δD) of about 8 ppmv/K. During the Holocene, there was a non-temperature related increase of about 20 ppmv, about which is much discussion: several see that as the beginning of agriculture. Since about 1850 the increase is about quadratic in lockstep with human emissions from the burning of fossil fuels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
The increase of 0.6ºC since 1900 (0.8ºC since 1850) is good for about 10 ppmv, the rest is human…
Ah, ha! Mr. Engelbeen, we meet again! 🙂
Thought no one would notice you slipping your unsupported conclusions about human CO2 in here, did you (smile — I know, I know, you weren’t trying to be sneaky)?
Response:
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#comment-718675 )
And MattG would also like to weigh in, here:
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#comment-718890 )
And finally, to give Mario 3 responses to weigh against yours here:
Bartemis:
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:13 pm
They didn’t calibrate their calculated pCO2 to the ice core records.
What part of “Presently the reason for this discrepancy remains unresolved. However, it is clear that the use of empirical calibration curves…” did you not understand?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm
The sink capacity isn’t elastic enough to remove the extra CO2 which is currently in the atmosphere at any high speed.
This is not a statement of fact, but of what you wish to be true.
The current 100 ppmv (200 GtC extra) extra removes only 4 GtC extra CO2 out of the atmosphere per year. That is because the increase in growth rate of vegetation is only average 50% if the atmospheric CO2 doubles.
No, this betrays a lack of understanding of how influx is partitioned between the oceans and atmosphere.
Why in the world am I arguing such trifling silliness? You are so out of the ballpark, you are not even in the same city.
No, Ferdinand… you just do not understand feedback systems. Case closed.”
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#comment-718909 )
P.S. (as usual, lol 🙂 )
In case this lecture might prove helpful (for WUWT comments supporting it, look for those by Allan M. R. MacRae and Bart or Bartemis and fhhaynie and other on threads such as this one: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/dr-murray-salby-on-model-world-vs-real-world/ )
Here are my notes for sort of a “Table of Contents” and, below, the video:
Changes in atmospheric composition are key to the “recent interpretation of climate.”
[4:25] — Proxy evidence of past atmospheric composition
– Ice cores (air bubbles in column sink under pressure of ice above them)
– Proxy temperature is inferred from isotopic oxygen (O2?)
[6:47] — CO2 and atmospheric temperature have strong coherence (.8) throughout the entire proxy record (when longer than 10,000 years); if one changes, so must the other – At small (< 1,000 years) positive lag (of CO2 echoing temp.) is maximum coherence
— Phase of temperature and CO2 hovers near 0 (i.e., cohere nearly in-phase)
Observed Modern Changes
[8:50] — 50 years of data
[9:06] — Max correlation of .5 where CO2 lags temperature by 10 months (and CO2 lags temperature at significant correlation over wide range of time scales)
[9:45] — CO2 is conserved in atmosphere, rate of change in CO2 level must EQUAL net emission from earth’s surface from all sources and sinks. (formula: drCO2/dt = net emission CO2)
[10:32] — Native (natural) emission of CO2 depends strongly on temperature
[10:58] –Net CO2 emission has .63 correlation with temperature
[11:35] — CO2 evolves like the integral of temperature, i.e., it is proportional to the cumulative net emission of CO2 from all sources and sinks
[13:52] — Temp. and CO2 evolve coherently on all times scales longer than 2 years
– CO2 lags temp. by a quarter cycle (i.e., in quadrature [14:03], using cosine and sine, lags by 90 degrees) – Note: Differing periods means no single lag value will align all components, thus, CO2 and temp. must be distributed widely over positive lag [13:22]
[14:40] — CO2 levels in ice change over time (due to natural modification and to measurement error) –
[15:56] – Conservation Equation (includes non-conservative factor, i.e., CO2 sinks) – illustrated by biomass
[17:05] – The Conservation Equation includes the total or “effective” damping [23:30] from atmospheric damping (i.e., non-conservative influences) of CO2 in the firn (when ice at top) and damping in the ice as it descends.
[25:40] — Changes in atmospheric CO2 are underestimated in the proxy record (and this underestimation increases radically over time [see graph at 26:11], i.e., the change in the atmosphere is much greater than the apparent change of CO2 in the ice.
[27:01] — Over time 10,000 years, the ice proxy underestimates atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 2; over 100,000 years, under by factor of 15 [27:29]
[27:52] — Observed changes in the 20th century are certainly not unprecedented
[28:50] — Incorporating depth (i.e., time) in ice transforms conservation equation to the Diffusion Equation – now can see that the proxy CO2 underestimation of atmospheric CO2 increases with frequency
[30:40] — (high frequencies with short time scales that are CO2-conservative are suppressed in ice)
– [Cross covariance of Temp. and CO2 equation at 18:02]
– The source-sink solution is “closed form,” i.e., it is unrivaled, “you can see exactly what is going on.”
[19:05] – a balance between the temp.-induced source and the non-conservative sink. Result: Temp. and CO2 in phase (nearly 0), i.e., additional CO2 almost immediately removed by sink.
[21:44] — (as with proxy) CO2 phase lags temp. by 90 degrees (i.e., evolve in quadrature, i.e., a quarter cycle out of phase)
[22:09] — CO2 limiting is “conservative,” i.e., the dissipating of CO2 cannot keep up with the CO2 added by temperature-induced emission
[31:35] — Cross-co-variance when compared with the observed record (ice proxies) similar, but differ fundamentally in the phase – the cross covariance of CO2 in ice and atmosphere has same form and decays over a matter of months
[33:15] — SUMMARY — Two Key Implications:
1) “Nonconservative Influences inherent in the Proxy Record enable Past Atmospheric Changes to be significantly underestimated”;
2) The Same Mechanism which governs Ancient Changes (time scales longer than several Thousand Years) also governs Modern Changes (times scales shorter than a Century).
[35:41] CAGWers claim that human CO2 dilutes atmospheric Carbon 13; for this to be true, native sources of CO2 must NOT dilute C13;
[36:34] — Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[37:01] — Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources (difference = net CO2)
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
[native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human]
[37:34] — Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”
[33:47] — What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks
[39:14] CO2 being conserved in the atmosphere, it is homogenized, i.e., evenly distributed, over long time periods (as observed, for land levels only, via satellites)
[39:40] High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites) are big CO2 sources – Note: they are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia)
[41:20]Observed deviations of global mean (natural) CO2 deviate widely, sometimes more than 100% from year to year, decade to decade – they are INcoherent with human CO2 emission rate, i.e, net global natural emission evolves independently of human emission
[42:35] Observed global (land or ocean measurements) CO2 emission has strong sensitivity (.93 correlation [43:41]) to surface properties (mostly temperature, c = .8, and also soil moisture), i.e., increase in either increases CO2 native emissions
[44:28] — C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up = C13 down
[45:15] — Opposite changes of C13 and CO2 are the same ones seen in the ice proxy
[45:22] — satellite record shows that the emissions are clearly NOT human, unless human emissions cause volcanic eruptions and El Nino ***
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, April, 2013
(youtube)
Janice,
If you quote Bart, you should quote my responses too… They are worth reading and over the years, my arguments still hold… There are near 500 responses in that discussion…
Further, Dr. Salby did make several severe errors in his lecture, like the (possible) diffusion of CO2 in ice cores, which is minimal in “warm”, coastal ice cores and completely absent in cold, inland ice cores. He didn’t repeat that in later lectures.
In short, Dr. Salby never, ever, discussed his arguments, not after his lectures (I was in London a few years ago for one of them in the Parliament buildings), not at WUWT or any other forum and never published his results. Thus sorry, of no scientific value.
I am not going to discuss this further, there were discussions enough in the past.
If Mario still is interested, my reasons to expect that humans are responsible for the recent CO2 increase are here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Which were discussed here at WUWT with hundreds of responses.
About the reasons for a spurious correlation between CO2 and the integral of T:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html
(There is one broken link to a graph by Bart, will replace that soon)
Dear fiends. This is really just a take away with comment.
I have wanted to read the Petit et al paper for a while as I use the grraphs w/o knowing the paper, but I have no academic account paid for by the tax payer like Piltdown Mann. As this is VERY relevant to a paper I am writing, I decided to look harder, and found a link to the original, that I downloaded foc. Only 8 pages and very interesting. http://www.jerome-chappellaz.com/files/publications/climate-and-atmospheric-history-of-the-past-420-000-years-from-the-vostok-ice-core-antarctica-38.pdf
Get it while its hot, and cold.
If Small and the gang are right and there is an anthropogenic effect. They suggest it has already prevented the apocalyptic prediction of the most likely return of the next ice age, coming soon to an ice sheet near you. Don’yt buy North of 50 degrees, etc. But are they right?
The current Holocene is ticking over nicely and, while cooling very gradually on a linear regression line, or auto correlation line, looks set to be around for a while yet. But not to run amock per the alarmist booky science of modelling academe. Well done Hom Sap? OR NOT…,
Do the actual time series results suggest the Holcene was procrastinating before any significant effect from CO2 combustion was possible from Hom Sap, short of an insignificant torching of the odd city and its inhabitants? So the authors’ suggestion is not credible until post WW2, and AGW is not the dominant cause of the extended interglacial on the obvious facts of the time series. BUT, some trapped radiation in the troposphere may prolong it further, until the plants increase adequately to consume the CO2 we produce in a new equilibrium, as before in climate history, and the next ice age begins.
I do agree that this has important implications for the devlopemnt of the first civilisation on Earth, which all happened in this interglacial. Warm was good for getting civilised, staying warm for the next 80,000 years can embed this development. Otherwise we are screwed, as there will be NO fossil fuels to bootstrap a new civilisation based on intense energy sources after the next interglacial…etc. Fire up the nukes! Best.
Why not, as stated previously, invest some money in carbon black dust, instead of all the green energy money wasting solutions, and then when the next ice age starts with increasing glaciers, spread it on them to cancel the it? Increased Albedo and real Anthropogenic global warming, without the threats inherent in some of the idiotic solutions proposed as solutions for CAGW.
Sorry, should read: reduced Albedo and cancel it (glaciation). Should be cheap and effective according to some previous posts, and maybe the salvation of civilization as we know it.
Stupid question from an ignoramus: over the past century, humans have pumped ground water for irrigation. In some area, this water was locked in in the ground for a long time; it is fossil water. Is the deuterium content of fossil water similar to surface (i.e. cycling) water?
I think it would depend on the source of the water the aquifer, and how long heavy molecules have had to sink in the aquifer.
“Nick Stokes October 7, 2017 at 6:14 pm
Well, this is clear too:
“the lack of warming over the last 8000 years of extraordinary increase in CO2”
And it’s just wrong. As the second fig shows, the increase is from about 260 ppmv to 280 ppmv”
The last 8000 years (of the chart) starts at 6000 BC and ends at 2000 AD. In the Vostok interval closest to 6000 BC (5933 BC), CO2 was 260.3 ppm. At the South Pole in 2000, CO2 was 367.03 ppm, not 280 ppm.
The highest value prior to 6000 BC was 298.7, at 321535 BC. That is why the value of 367.03 is extraordinary.
We seem to have some differences regarding whether 367.03 is greater than 280, and what is extraordinary. But perhaps you can explain why, since CO2 concentration passed 298.7 ppm about 110 years ago (according to the Law Dome) and has steadily increased to higher (if not extraordinary) values, why it is that Vostok snow indicates that present temperature there remains about 2 degrees-C below the value associated with 298.7 ppm of CO2?
“We seem to have some differences regarding whether 367.03 is greater than 280, and what is extraordinary.”
R Taylor-
He supposedly has a Ph.D in mathematics. Which makes his responses even LESS rational.
Oh…but apparently because he’s “really polite” and “unoffensive” we should probably look the other way and not point out his flawed reasoning skills or how he takes certain things out of context in order to arrive at unsupported conclusions.
The graph of deuterium data, which was supposed to illustrate the lack of warming that accompanied this “last 8000 years of extraordinary increase” ended in 1808.
No, I’m sorry you missed it in the note, but 1808 was the last annotation on the Time axis of the first chart. (The axis ends at 1811). The deuterium data of Ekaykin, et al. extend to 2010, and ~20-year averages of them are plotted in the second chart. It is the second chart that shows lack of warming over the last 8000 years of what I would call unnatural CO2 and what I have called extraordinary (extreme?) CO2 since around 1907.
Alan MacRae:
Oct. 7, 8:pm
You really do need to read my post, as I show that temperature increases precisely respond to the amount of reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions. Your feeling that the cleaner air was not sufficient to cause the anomalous warming is NOT supported by the facts.
Burt
there is no man made warming or man made climate change from CO2, CH4 or SO2 or whatever else we put up in the air.
Check the records. Start measuring in your own back yard.
To give a summary of all my investigations into climate change starting ca. 2009/2010
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Hi Burl,
I just read your paper. I suggest you now read my above reference.
Regards, Allan.
There simply are no means of validating the ice core estimates for any time period except a short interval of overlap with modern, direct measurements. As a result, any hypothesis based upon them is speculative. “It must be, because we cannot think of any reason it cannot” is an argument from ignorance.
I’m sure we would appreciate any analyses of error, spatial variability, etc. in measurements of deuterium or oxygen-18 that you might share. In addition to Ekaykin, et al. (2014) featured in this note, I have seen other reports of careful studies in the recent snows of Antarctica. We have no way, however, of investigating the formational circumstances of the Vostok, Dome C and Dome Fuji cores to anything approaching the same level of detail, and the clarity and consistency of the information they provide about the 2-3 glacial cycles is remarkable.
R Taylor: Are you Richard Taylor?
I am a retired teacher (not science) and a long term “denier”. To better assess this subject and apply weight to the comments, I need to know your qualifications. Google doesn’t hep me find you.
R Taylor=Richard Taylor=author of article
His qualifications are irrelevant if his premises and conclusions are valid. Weight his comments based on their logic and the EVIDENCE he posts to support them .
Bart,
You are mistaken here, as the short overlap is only for the CO2 levels in ice cores. Even that is roughly confirmed by sediments over the past 2 million years, be it with a much worse resolution.
And again, if there is a very high similarity in CO2 values between direct measurements in the atmosphere and direct measurements in ice bubbles over a period of 20 years, what then is your stake to not trust the rest of the 150-year high resolution Law Dome ice core measurements? Or the 1000-year medium resolution DSS core?
Then, with decreasing resolution, what is your stake to not trust the rest of the ice cores that have overlapping (“bootstrapping”) periods with each other, each again with excellent to reasonable similarity for the same time period?
Temperature of the SH in this case is based on different proxies like δD and δ18O. Not only in ice cores, but also in sediments all over the SH oceans and with a much better resolution than for CO2 of ~20 years in ice cores like Vostok and after 1658 even with yearly resolution in snow layers.
“dbeyat45
October 9, 2017 at 2:33 am
R Taylor: Are you Richard Taylor?
I am a retired teacher (not science) and a long term “denier”. To better assess this subject and apply weight to the comments, I need to know your qualifications. Google doesn’t hep me find you”
Good. I was serious about disparagement, and I don’t like it more than anyone else. Sorry I can’t help with qualifications, but all the skillful measurements I used were made by others and are freely available through the links I provided. The only thing I have done is to show that ice and snow measurements at Vostok are comparable and can be taken together as a continuous indicator of atmospheric temperature from 420000 BC to the present.
If you know how to use a spreadsheet program, I suggest you plot the deuterium, temperature reconstruction and CO2 numbers yourself. Look at the lead-lag relationship, or ignore it and see whether the relationship between deuterium and CO2 is essentially linear or logarithmic. (Logarithmic is required by the theory of warming by CO2).
Good luck in your research.