backtop

Blog: Science Report: CO2 Not Responsible for Past Warming
Michael Asher (Blog) - October 17, 2007 3:42 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 147 comment(s) - last by Andy35W.. on Nov 14 at 8:10 AM

New Research links retreating ice sheets to climate change -- not the other way around.
Major new study disputes primary link to greenhouse gas warming

Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming -- that warm periods in the earth's past were typically accompanied by rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  But that evidence is under serious attack, from new research funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The research team, led by Paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, demonstrated CO2 levels after the last Ice Age started to rise some 1,300 years after the warming began.  According to Stott, earlier researchers had cause and effect reversed -- CO2 increases were the result of warming, and not the original cause.  Stott's paper is not the first to show CO2 rises followed warming trends, but it is one of the most detailed and thorough rebuttals of the linkage.

The work comes hot on the heels of other research downgrading CO2's importance in climate change.  Earlier this year, the Belgian Royal Meteorological Institute issued a study saying CO2 effects had been "grossly overstated."  Dr. Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs concluded that CO2-based warming had been overstated by some 400%, and a pair of Chinese researchers used mathematical modeling to demonstrate the majority of current warming was natural in origin.

Stott's findings are important for two reasons.  First, they directly challenge the correlation between CO2 and warming.  As Stott himself points out, CO2 is still likely a contributor to climate change, but its role needs to be reevaluated.

The results also weaken the belief that present-day atmospheric CO2 increases must be anthromorphic -- human-induced.  Stott's model showed how the warming generated changed ocean conditions, which then generated massive releases of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere.   As natural CO2 sources still constitutes more than 97% of all emissions, this may not come as much of a surprise.

But if CO2 didn't cause the warming, what did?  Stott's model links the forcing to periodic changes in the Earth's orbit which increase solar radiation over Antarctica.  This eventually causes ice sheet retreat, which lowers ocean albedo, reflectivity.  Additional warming is generated, a feedback effect which over 1,000 or more years, transports heat via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere.  The model also explains why surface measurements of solar insolation fail to correlate with warming ... the heat transport process is very slow, and thus surface warming lags centuries behind changes in solar output.

Stott is a professor at the University of Southern California, and a reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

The Nobel Foundation recently announced the IPCC as a corecipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 8:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is just not true to say that AGW implies a belief that past warmings were caused by CO2 forcing. Nor is the observation that CO2 lagged warming in past deglaciations new. The IPCC report (AR3) of 2001 had this to say
quote:
From a detailed study of the last three glacial terminations in the Vostok ice core, Fischer et al. (1999) conclude that CO2 increases started 600 ± 400 years after the Antarctic warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm#2...




RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 9:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
You left out the most important part of that quote:

quote:
However, considering the large uncertainty in the ages of the CO2 and ice (1,000 years or more if we consider the ice accumulation rate uncertainty), Petit et al. (1999) felt it premature to ascertain the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and Antarctic temperature at the initiation of the terminations. In any event, CO2 changes parallel Antarctic temperature changes during deglaciations.
This shows the IPCC clinging to the assumption that CO2 contributed greatly to ending those ice ages. This new study, however, shows the action was primarily over before CO2 rose substantially.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 9:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
They are just saying that the 1999 evidence has enough error that you can't be certain of the phase relation. This isn't "clinging", because they never asserted the relation that you say they are clinging to. And they say CO2 "parallels" temperature, which is true. That is a neutral statement - doesn't say whether it is before or after.


RE: This is not new!
By LogicallyGenius on 10/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is not new!
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 9:06:33 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think you're paying very close attention to the AGW rhetoric. For example, in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore discusses at great length about past history rises in CO2 that "caused" past temperature rises. Then he goes on to talk about our current "skyrocketing" CO2 levels, saying that we are causing those, and therefore, we are causing the current global warming.

In addition, I just have to laugh at your statement in another post where you are basically saying that this time the temperature rise is different, i.e., there is a different mechanism in play now compared to other times in history. Obviously you are implying that humans are causing the current rise, but you completely ignore the fact that the current warming trend started some 250 years ago before humans had the technology to cause any sort of significant rise in CO2 or other GHGs.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 9:24:57 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure what Al Gore says - he may have mis-stated it. I believe that this was one of the areas where the British judge said that he was out of line with the mainstream. I do know that scientists do not believe that past warmings were CO2 driven. I do imply that humans are causing the current rise, due to the 150 Gt of carbon we have put into the atmosphere. That is the CO2 forcing. It may be that there was some small temperature rise 250 years ago caused by something else.


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 9:29:31 AM , Rating: 1
> "I do know that scientists do not believe that past warmings were CO2 driven"

From IPCC 2001 (your own link, above):

quote:
This is consistent with a significant contribution of these greenhouse gases to the glacial-interglacial changes...


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 9:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
To complete the quote:
quote:
This is consistent with a significant contribution of these greenhouse gases to the glacial-interglacial changes by amplifying the initial orbital forcing (Petit et al., 1999).

ie something else (orbital forcing) started the warming, and the gases that were driven out by warming provided positive feedback which caused further warming. but that is feedback, not a forcing. And as they (IPCC) say, that is consistent with a delayed CO2 rise, observed by both Petit (1999) and Stott.


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 10:05:51 AM , Rating: 3
No, Stott is careful about timing, he says:
quote:

nor can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing
. That is consistent with the possibility of later amplification.

The earlier result was between 200 and 1000 years delay; Stott says 1300 (with no error limits). Not very much difference there.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
Incidentally, the fact that we're trying to glean the IPCC's view from a single non-committal paragraph buried deep in the AR3 is a clear indication that it is not true that
quote:
Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming -- that warm periods in the earth's past were typically accompanied by rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

If that were their strongest evidence, they would be much more upfront with it!


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 10:39:18 AM , Rating: 1
> "If that were their strongest evidence, they would be much more upfront with it! "

If you believe they have stonger evidence for CO2's role in forcing, then put it forth here. A simple radiative forcing calculation doesn't give rise to anywhere near the level of warming the IPCC predicts.

The only evidence for CO2's role in climate change is the correlation in the geologic record, and the projections of GCM models. Remove the geologic correlation, and that leaves only the GCMs, which are based on thousands of ad-hoc parameters, and have failed utterly in predictive ability.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 10:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
No the primary evidence for CO2's role in climate change is the greenhouse effect. You can calculate, by a fairly simple 1D analysis, the IR heat absorbed. And you can verify, by looking at the satellite-measured spectrum of outgoing IR, the radiation that has been absorbed. Comes to roughly 2 W/m2. Arrhenius could see that in 1896. And sure, you then need to adjust for clouds, aerosols, feedback etc, which is where the GCM's come in.

There were essentially no pre-instrumental temperature or CO2 estimates to correlate in the 1980's, when AGW gained widespread scientific acceptance, leading to the Kyoto meeting.


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 11:13:33 AM , Rating: 1
> "the primary evidence for CO2's role in climate change is the greenhouse effect. You can calculate, by a fairly simple 1D analysis, the IR heat absorbed"

Which is what I said. However, that calculation results in an expected rise of only 0.6 - 1.0 degrees for the first doubling of CO2. The IPCC predicts 2.5 degrees, possibly more.

The difference is anticipated feedback effects, which are extrapolated from GCM models, whose parameters derived from "best guess" estimates of climate response, taken largely from analysis of the Earth's response to past conditions. Where else would they come from?

If one removes the geologic record from the equation, a simple radiative forcing delta calculation (aka "greenhouse effect") leads only to a minor degree of warming, most of which we've already experienced.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 6:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it's true that positive feedback amplifies the GHG effect by a factor of 2 or more, and that ultimately the best estimate of this factor comes from the climate history. But that has little to do with what is discussed here. The strongest feedback by far is from water vapor. More heat, more vapor, which is a GHG, then more heat. The feedback role (as opposed to the driver role) of CO2 is minor in comparison.


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 6:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "The feedback role (as opposed to the driver role) of CO2 is minor in comparison. "

You might want to inform the IPCC of your theories, as they clash strongly with their own opinion. Again, from your earlier link:

quote:
This is consistent with a significant contribution of [CO2] to the glacial-interglacial changes by amplifying the initial orbital forcing


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 7:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
No need to do that - they know!
quote:
Water vapour feedback continues to be the most consistently important feedback accounting for the large warming predicted by general circulation models in response to a doubling of CO2. Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm


RE: This is not new!
By grenableu on 10/18/2007 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
Even my son's 8th-grade science book shows a graph linking CO2 to previous warming of the Earth. You can't toss this study away that lightly.


RE: This is not new!
By murphyslabrat on 10/18/2007 4:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
People believed the earth to be flat for hundreds of years, and they even taught it to kids. Does that give any cause to believe it true?


RE: This is not new!
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 4:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Luckily my kids are too young to learn about this stuff in school, otherwise I'd have to go in there and kick some teacher @ss if I came across something like AGW in their textbooks. LOL.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 6:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I can't check that textbook. But I can check the IPCC 2007 summary doc, which is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
I can find no trace of this alleged fundamental argument that past warmings were driven by CO2. Can anyone?


RE: This is not new!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 6:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "I can find no trace of this alleged fundamental argument that past warmings were driven by CO2. Can anyone? "

You won't find any fundamental arguments of any sort in that link. The IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" is written by politicians for politicians, and contains no science or underlying arguments. It just states conclusions, without attempting to explain how it arrives at them.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/18/2007 7:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, where can we find it? If, as you say, "Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming", then some quotable scientist must be asserting it somewhere. I looked for places in the IPCC AR3 "scientific basis" http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm and this noncommittal reference that we've discussed was all I could find. And the AR3 has plenty of other evidence.


RE: This is not new!
By pliny on 10/19/2007 12:14:07 AM , Rating: 3
More details here. Stott discusses this work on his website here:
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/ProjectsFolder/Project...
quote:

Climate model simulations utilizing the history of greenhouse gases, ice-sheet orography and orbital forcing demonstrate that austral spring insolation combined with sea ice-albedo feedbacks were key factors responsible for this warming. Atmospheric CO2 was a contributing factor but would not have been the trigger that initiated deglacial warming.

quote:

Clearly CO2 forcing was a contributing factor to the warming, but was not responsible for much of the warming that took place globally.


So Stott and the IPCC(2001) agree - something else started it, and later CO2 feedback may have been a factor.


OK but?
By Misty Dingos on 10/17/2007 4:19:00 PM , Rating: 5
Does this mean that Al is going to give back the Nobel Peace Prize? After all he has done is scared the crap out of a bunch of kids. Not a very peacefull thing to do.




RE: OK but?
By jskirwin on 10/17/2007 4:30:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Does this mean that Al is going to give back the Nobel Peace Prize?


Too late. He already used his half to pay last month's electric bill.


RE: OK but?
By porkpie on 10/17/2007 4:43:06 PM , Rating: 5
If that post doesn't deserve a +6, then nothing does.


RE: OK but?
By murphyslabrat on 10/18/2007 4:33:42 PM , Rating: 4
Whee I'm gonna reply and get lots of up-rates, too!


RE: OK but?
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ride the wave!


RE: OK but?
By murphyslabrat on 10/22/2007 10:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
Holy cow, I didn't think anyone would actually uprate me!


RE: OK but?
By johnsonx on 10/17/2007 6:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
I posted this once before, but again I find it fitting:

http://www.paulshanklin.com/audio/p_spastic17.mp3


RE: OK but?
By murphyslabrat on 10/18/2007 4:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks a lot, I just got scolded for being too loud in the library. That down-right slanderous, and I couldn't stop laughing.


RE: OK but?
By MrPickins on 10/18/2007 5:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wish I could "6" ya!


Wait a second...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 4:43:32 PM , Rating: 3
If...
quote:
The research team, led by Paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, demonstrated CO2 levels after the last Ice Age started to rise some 1,300 years after the warming began.
than how do we get to...
quote:
As Stott himself points out, CO2 is still likely a contributor to climate change, but its role needs to be reevaluated.
I mean - how can A contribute to B if A comes after B ?

Or are we talking about climate change in a broader sense than simply warming?




RE: Wait a second...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 4:57:48 PM , Rating: 3
Stott was implying that CO2 is still likely a contributor to warming as a feedback process, just not a direct forcing agent. In other words:

Warming occurs -> releasing more CO2 -> causing additional warming.


RE: Wait a second...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, that makes sense. So, assuming that's the case - wouldn't that change the dynamics of the AGW debate significantly? I mean, the CO2 is being released naturally - far in excess of what we have control over. Furthermore, it's no longer the driving force behind the warming.

The question would now become, if CO2 isn't the root cause of the warming, then what is? This paper indicates that changes in the Earth's orbit cause the warming, and that's not something we can really change. So...?


RE: Wait a second...
By onelittleindian on 10/17/2007 5:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wouldn't that change the dynamics of the AGW debate significantly? I mean, the CO2 is being released naturally - far in excess of what we have control over
You hit the nail on the head there. And thats exactly why you won't see CNN's "science/environmental" reporters covering this story.


RE: Wait a second...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 7:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Damn right about that - because if humans are not causing global warming, then the whole political movement goes down the tubes. How can the environmentalists try to control our lives without such a fear factor in play? On to the next crisis!


RE: Wait a second...
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 3:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, they do cover a fair number of these stories, just their spin is always the opposite of Masher's.


RE: Wait a second...
By chsh1ca on 10/18/2007 3:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's sad that reporting scientific findings requires spin in either direction.


correlation?
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 4:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, they directly challenge the correlation between CO2 and warming.

I think you mean they challenge causality, as in CO2 causes warming. It sounds like there is still a correlation, apparently between (temp.change+1300years) and CO2 changes.




RE: correlation?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 4:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, but the research does in a way challenge the correlation as well...or rather, supplants it with a new corrrelation, biased with a strong latency factor.


RE: correlation?
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
There's no latency factor, I think what you wanted to say is that for this time period it appears to reverse the correlation.

A latency factor would imply CO2 was still causing the warming, just later than expected.

But you are correct that it does attempt to supplant it! =D


RE: correlation?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 6:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "a latency factor would imply CO2 was still causing the warming"

No, because correlation does not imply causation. There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. But due to the latency, its clear CO2 is not the causative agent -- the temperature rise itself is.


RE: correlation?
By chsh1ca on 10/18/2007 3:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
The only clear thing any of the recent research has shown us is that we lack sufficient data to accurately state anything when it comes to climate change. Maybe in 50-250 years we'll have a better idea, but right now it's a big question mark.


RE: correlation?
By murphyslabrat on 10/18/2007 4:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
The study does talk about a latency factor, that CO2, while not the agent of change, is a product of warming as well as a catalyst for warming. So, the warmer it gets, the more CO2 is released, and the larger the affect of the CO2 population is on the rising temperatures.

a causes b, which results in c, and c affects b.

a=change in orbit, b=changing temperatures, c=CO2 population.


ocean warming
By duesd001 on 10/17/2007 10:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
The ocean is a major reservoir for CO2, until it heats up then it very quickly loses its ability to hold dissolved gases. It would be interesting to know if there was a pH change in the ocean which coincided with the rise in deep ocean temperatures. Does the temp continue to rise as CO2 is released from the ocean? Does it speed up? Slow down? Are there any other atmospheric phenomena that could explain the temperature changes? It is after all the oceans that make our planet livable, by slowing and moderating changes in temperature and atmospheric composition. Like most complex arguments, proponents on both sides over simplify and distort small pieces of scientific research to support their claims.
Some facts:
Climate change is happening
We don't know how much fossil fuel we have left
we know that much of the fossil fuels that are left will be extremely expensive to extract
Everything that we do everyday is tied to our use of fossil fuels
Change is slow
$10 per gallon for gas will greatly disrupt our economy and food supply

Changes in our lifestyles and habits will happen: Slowly and on our terms or dictated by a situation out of our control.
Daniel Duesing




RE: ocean warming
By barclay on 10/17/2007 11:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "We don't know how much fossil fuel we have left
we know that much of the fossil fuels that are left will be extremely expensive to extract"

While this may be true of oil, coal appears to be stable in terms of extraction expenses and will likely continue to be for the next century or more.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_s...

In either case, the real question is, should market forces or government set the pace of migration away from fossil fuels?

If it is just a matter of energy needs, the market is ideal-- alternative sources of energy will be increasingly used as the price of existing sources increase in cost. It is efficient and smooth.
In order for government to be justified in interfering, two questions need to be answered:
1. Do fossil fuels produce negative externalities (reworded -- does the CO2 released from fossil fuels negatively affect the earth's climate)?
2. Do the costs associated with a worst climate outweigh the costs associated with accelerating the move away from fossil fuels?


RE: ocean warming
By andrinoaa on 10/18/2007 12:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you rely on market forces for everything, we would be in a very bad state. The market cannot fix everything! Yes , I repeat, the market cannot fix everything. The market is a tool of human organization. Thus it has flaws.
We subsidise antisocial behaviour ie mining asbestos. If the market was perfect, the cleanup costs would be included in the price of fuel but it insn't!
Us humans need to determine outcomes not let the "market" have its whims. The market is there to SERVE US not to be the ultimate goal. Individual freedom is good, but some times we come together to form government and form laws because we know that without limitations we are like children who will self destruct ie "Lord of the flies".
William Golding was more insiteful of human behaviour then Ms Bronte


RE: ocean warming
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 1:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think his comments were pretty fair as he acknowledged the existence of externalities, and only left open the issue of whether these are sufficient to justify government intervention.

The best role for government is to add in a tax equal to the expected cleanup costs, and then put that money in some sort of trust fund to pay for it when the time comes. Likewise for other negative externalities. But then be fair and at least for coal factor in some amount of benefit for decreased reliance on overseas oil supplies. Once the externalities are accounted for then let the market figure out the rest.

Alas, politics always messes with everything. For Republicans "tax" is a nasty swear word, while for Democrats oil and coal companies are evil and should be punished, so alas I have no faith that more than a feeble attempt at a proper accounting for externalities can ever be implemented.


Things never change...
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/17/2007 6:31:34 PM , Rating: 4
This whole debate, Al Gore and the zealots vs. reason, reminds me of an old quote about human nature, from the novel Shirley by Charlotte Bronte (author of Jane Eyre):

"Note well! Whenever you present the actual, simple, truth, it is somehow always denounced as a lie: they disown it, cast it off, throw it on the parish; whereas the product of your own imagination, the mere figment, the sheer fiction, is adapted, termed pretty, proper, sweetly natural: the little spurious wretch gets all the comfits - the honest, lawful bantling all the cuffs. Such is the way of the world..."

How well it fits today's issues, considering it was written in 1849. People are more willing to accept Al Gore and David Suzuki's extravagant fiction, rather than dull old science. Human nature is so predictable, so illogical... too bad Spock can't run for president (not born in the USA).




RE: Things never change...
By andrinoaa on 10/18/2007 12:12:14 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it that we believe once peice of science yet discard another? How much evidence do some people need before it hits them in the head?
Marine scientists in the Great Barrier Reef have discovered the the ocean is becoming acidic: carbonic acid! It is absorbing more co2. This may seem to go against the flow but is a consequence of lots of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a balance of the CO2 content in the atmosphere and in the oceans (don't know what the specific ratio is ). If more is released into the atmosphere, to maintain the balance, more is absorbed by the oceans. Do you guys who think us humans have no effect whatsoever know what will happen if the oceans become too acidic? My info suggests basic food stocks , ie plankton , will become scarce and so will everything above in the food chain.
I for one think that we could be infor a double wammy.
Every peice of evidence is dismissed, scientists who have studied these things for long periods are dismissed as "the green industry" and zealots. Canarys have never had it so bad!
By all means, disagree, but please , introduce your 20years of research. Get the facts straight. The reason we have a global warming scenario at the moment is that lots of independant scientific research units have come to similar conclusions.. Are they all wrong? Have we got a generation of shizzen housen scientists?
PS. Charlotte Bronte wasn't a scientist and for every wise tale there is an opposite - think before you leap, he who hesitates is lost, which one is right?
Captain orgazmo, take your hand off it!


RE: Things never change...
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/18/2007 2:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, people who present statistics that do not go with the popular belief of man-made global warming are the ones who are dismissed and called "deniers". I challenge you to "introduce your 20 years of research". Then compare it to the last 40 years of research that suggested we were in for another ice age.

I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time writing this, as your English is so terrible I'm not even sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my post. If your first language is not English, I apologize, but if it is, please attempt to organize your thoughts before vomiting them onto this website.


Quote by Scott
By howtochooseausername on 10/18/2007 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
I found the following quote by Scott:

quote:
“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”


I think its important to understand that this paper does not say that today's warming is not caused by Greenhouse Gases. Rather it only says that in the past the warming that the earth experienced appears not to have been immediately caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. I hope everyone understands that distinction.




RE: Quote by Scott
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 2:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
But today's belief in AGW is explained as a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global warming, based on (misinterpreted) historical data. So this research begins to take apart one of the key "assumptions" of the AGW belief system. I hope that is clear, too.


RE: Quote by Scott
By murphyslabrat on 10/18/2007 5:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is not talking about "only in the past" it is saying that CO2 does strongly influence the temperature, but it is not solely the product of man-made (not woman-made either) gases. It is saying that there is a natural cycle that affects the CO2 population and temperatures, and that it has nothing to do with humans.


Minor mistake
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/19/2007 9:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming


Should be "It's", not "Its".

PS: Nice article!




Fear!
By Googer on 10/19/2007 10:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
This just goes to prove how much of a Fear Mongerer Al Gore really is and he is doing it for capital gains in the form of scaring you in to buying "carbon credits" from a company he owns and in to paying to see his propaganda films.




Word switcharoo
By EidolWays on 10/20/2007 6:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's worth briefly noting that "anthromorphic" isn't a word. The properly spelled word, "anthropomorphic", isn't appropriate in this case either because it means "human-shaped." The right word, and the word used in a lot of the comments here, is "anthropogenic", meaning "human-born."




By Andy35W on 11/14/2007 8:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Though that theory seems to being debunked somewhat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655....

One of the problems climate change skeptics have is they cannot settle on another theory that causes it. People who quote their work don't seem to care as long as it debunks humans being the cause.




vote one for graft!
By GlassHouse69 on 10/18/2007 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 1
It is amazing what 10 billion dollars in payoffs can accomplish!

Go Bush!




Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 4:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see this new study as conclusive proof of anything

The point isn't to prove anything - the objective is to report on another study that is helping to deconstruct the myth of human-induced global warming.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 4:46:56 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. At least one element of the study - the observation that CO2 rise happens some 1300 years after the temperature rises - helps to disprove the assertion that CO2 rise has in the past led to (caused) higher global temperatures. This causation is a core belief in the AGW mythology.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 5:29:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do you understand what I mean?

Yes, I understand, but I also disagree. The conditions don't have to be identical, because the relevant part of the study IMO is that CO2 rise lags temperature rise by 1300 years. This indicates that, for the period of the study at least, that it is an error to conclude that CO2 rise causes global warming based on historical data.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 10/17/2007 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This scenario is not relevant to modern warming
Which part do you not understand? The study is relevant because past warming has been used as evidence to blame modern warming on CO2.

Now, there are only two possibilities. Either past conditions were similar to modern ones or they weren't.

If they WERE similar, then modern warming is probably happening for the same reason as the past.

If they WEREN'T similar, then you can't use past events to justify blaming CO2 on modern warming.

You keep trying to reverse things. The study isn't proving anything. Its REMOVING proof from those who blame GHGs based on past events.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 7:12:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You keep trying to reverse things. The study isn't proving anything. Its REMOVING proof from those who blame GHGs based on past events.

Thank you - that is the same point I'm trying to get across.

And shame on the downraters of my posts above - if you disagree, please speak up. It is pretty lame to just rate me down without even understanding the discussion. Jason's pretty wrong here, and I'm the one getting downrated.


RE: Interesting...
By drebo on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 8:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the "proof by repeated assertion" method.


RE: Interesting...
By DNAgent on 10/18/2007 9:58:50 AM , Rating: 5
Do you honestly believe that "conservatives" never use that tactic? Please...don't act like the screaming of insubstantial beliefs is limited to a specific world view. There are plenty of people from the farthest reaches of the left to the farthest reaches of the right and everywhere in between who destroy chances at calm and logical conversation by acting this way. Using the "liberal" and "conservative" tags does not help...it just places people in neat unrealistic boxes as targets for unjustified hatemongering.


RE: Interesting...
By Bioniccrackmonk on 10/17/2007 8:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, on this site, if you post then your votes are dismissed, so we will never know who is doing what for votes.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 10:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Somebody or bodies thinks TomZ is way off mark, and since voting and commenting are mutually exclusive here then they've chosen to use voting to express that. I think his remarks are relevant in this case, regardless of correctness or not, so I wouldn't do that. On the other hand, I'd mod down almost all the people responding to TomZ's latest post, because their comments contribute nothing (just as with this last sentence of mine).


RE: Interesting...
By onelittleindian on 10/17/2007 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And shame on the downraters of my posts above - if you disagree, please speak up. It is pretty lame to just rate me down without even understanding the discussion
I've found that hardcore environmentalists are pretty much dead-set against free speech and open, honest debate. So don't take it too personally.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/2007 8:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
A core belief in AGW? TomZ, do you have any evidence for that? AGW describes to the present warming, caused by CO2 from fossil fuels. Past warmings were caused by something else, not necessarily known, although Stott's paper may help to elucidate it. I don't think anyone says they were caused by CO2, although Gore did manage to confuse this issue. CO2 was driven out of the ocean (and other reservoirs) by the warming, and so yes, lagged the warming. A passive response. Typically a rise of 3-4C produced a rise in CO2 of about 100 ppm. This may have provided positive feedback, but not much - the rise in CO2 is less than our modern fossil fuel driven increase. Water vapor feedback is much greater.

The present situation is unrelated. The extra CO2 in the air is not coming out of the oceans; it comes from our burning fossil fuels. It leads the warming.


RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 10/18/2007 8:48:30 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't think anyone says they were caused by CO2
Many scientists did believe just that. The idea was the co2 increased for whatever reason, and that made the earth warm up. Now they see the real scenario was "the earth warmed up for whatever reason and that made the co2 rise".

quote:
The extra CO2 in the air is not coming out of the oceans; it comes from our burning fossil fuels
But we don't know that. We DO know that 97% of the co2 is coming from natural sources. We ASSUME that, because co2 is rising, that the 3% we add is causing it to happen. But that assumption is looking more and more silly as time goes on.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 9:21:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Isotopic studies establish beyond doubt that the extra CO2 in the air has a fossil fuel origin.
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Isotopic studies establish that the increase is coming from "old" CO2 (i.e. containing little to no 14C) as thus is not "recently" biologic in origin. However, this does't preclude other natural CO2 sources.

The 13C profile of atmospheric and SS CO2 has slightly declined as well. This argues against outgassing of CO2 from the ocean surface. However, it does fit nicely with the theory that atmospheric CO2 from an earlier, higher-concentration era was captured and stored by natural processes, and is now being re-released.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 9:37:50 AM , Rating: 5
It's even more farfetched to believe that, out of all the thousands of times a warming Earth has released vast amounts of CO2, that this time is different, and that natural rise isn't happening for some strange reason.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/2007 10:22:22 AM , Rating: 1
No, past releases haven't been vast - typically less than 100 ppm. Past CO2 levels (in the last 650000 years) haven't exceeded 300 ppm - we're now at nearly 390. That's different!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420....


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 10:31:11 AM , Rating: 5
> "past releases haven't been vast - typically less than 100 ppm. Past CO2 levels (in the last 650000 years) haven't exceeded 300 ppm "

CO2 levels have surpassed 3,000 ppm (8x current levels) many times in the Earth's history. 650,000 years is a very brief period, geologically speaking.

In any case, you're missing the point. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is very weak in the geologic record, and weakened further by research such as the focus of this article. Excluding that record, there's no reason to believe that CO2 levels of 3,000 or even 30,000 ppm will lead to catastrophic warming, due to saturation effects. It simply becomes a nonissue.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/2007 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I think you're missing the point. Correlation between past CO2 and temperature rise is not part of the argument for AGW. Only in the present circumstances is it argued that CO2, from an anthropogenic source, is forcing global warming. Past correlations may be interesting, but are not part of the argument.

650000 years covers a lot of ice age events, certainly including the one in Stott's paper.


RE: Interesting...
By onelittleindian on 10/18/2007 11:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Past correlations may be interesting, but are not part of the argument.
Which part of the IPCC saying CO2 made a "significant contribution" to climate change did you fail to understand?

quote:
Only in the present circumstances is it argued that CO2 is forcing global warming
So this period is different than all the other thousands of times the earth has warmed up? Yeah, that's real likely.


RE: Interesting...
By grenableu on 10/18/2007 11:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Correlation between past CO2 and temperature rise is not part of the argument for AGW.
So you're admitting Al Gore is full of crap?


RE: Interesting...
By blaster5k on 10/18/2007 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
That 3% (if that's what the figure is) is enough. You don't find it slightly odd that atmospheric CO2 levels went from 280 ppmv in 1800 to 315 ppmv in 1958 to 380 ppmv today? All evidence indicates that CO2 levels were fairly stable at 270-280 ppmv for a thousand years before that. Even when you look back 650,000 years, there is no evidence of a change that drastic.

That the change we're seeing right now is so sudden and coincidentally correlates well with the rates of CO2 produced by fossil fuels and land use changes should be a red flag. I suppose it's also coincidence that the balance of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has shifted in response to fossil fuel generated emissions? Or that the CO2 level increases in Antarctic lag the northern hemisphere by a few years (since that's where most of the man made CO2 emissions are coming from)?

I think the politicizing of the issue has caused a lot of misinformation to be spread, but there is some legitimate concern. The way I see it, without our putting out the carbon emissions, we wouldn't be able to support the population we have now and not with the standard of living and life expectancy increases. A lot of the green folks don't get that part and remain insistent on ineffective solutions.

I do strongly recommend researching the issue and reading through the evidence that scientists provide for warming. It's really not based on a lot of the junk you read in the news or on one of those crazy environmentalist websites. I used to be in denial too.


RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 10/18/2007 10:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even when you look back 650,000 years, there is no evidence of a change that drastic.
Funny you should choose that period. Because if you look back further, you see plenty of cases where CO2 has risen faster than it has now. 650K years sounds like a lot, but its about 0.01% of the age of the planet. It's useless for drawing conclusions.

As for temperature, I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Holocene Maximum, where temperatures were several degrees higher than they are today. What caused that? It sure wasn't SUVs. And you know what's even more interesting? That huge warming spike didn't cause any environmental catastrophe either.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 10:22:26 AM , Rating: 4
> "Even when you look back 650,000 years, there is no evidence of a change that drastic"

Unfortunately, the statement itself isn't accurate. Here's a chart of CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years, which clearly shows several instances of rapid rise in that period. It also demonstrates that the current increasing trend began several thousand years ago:

http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg


RE: Interesting...
By NullSubroutine on 10/21/2007 12:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
While having no science to back up this hypothesis, I will throw it out for food for thought.

Granted, according to your numbers, CO2 has been increasing ppmv, could that number be increasing as a byproduct of different reasons than humans buring fossil fuels?

Would it not be more prudent to hypothesize that CO2 levels have increased because of the deforestation in many places of the world, especially given that trees/plants breath CO2 in, and O2 out?

Could it also be possible that previous rises/falls (not all of course) of C02 levels could be correlated to vegetation levels on earth? I would imagine that astroids hitting earth, fires, floods, and general geological events (volcanos, etc) could effect large areas of C02 breathing vegetation.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 4:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm having some trouble understanding you here, Jason. This paper concludes, or at least implies, that CO2 does not cause Global Warming.

How does that not affect the AGW debate? Bear in mind, I only have access to the abstract of this paper.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the abstract the paper seeks to prove that warming over a specific time period 17 to 19 kpa is not due to CO2 forcing, but rather due to deep ocean warming, which was due to solar radiation, and in turn led to CO2 rise.

The abstract makes no claim to relate this situation to modern times.

It also does not state that CO2 cannot cause warming, just that it does not believe it did in this particular instance.

Since the paper is stating that the cause of warming (and CO2) in this instance is deep sea warming, again unless deep sea warming has occurred, this scenario can not be applied to modern warming.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 5:06:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The abstract makes no claim to relate this situation to modern times.

But at the same time, those that believe in human-induced global warming do apply the same historical data to modern times. Therefore by disproving the direct causation for this particular period, it undermines the above argument.

I think you realize this, however.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, if somebody's analysis of modern global warming was based solely on relating it to this specific warming period from 17 to 19 kpa, then this research possibly invalidates it, absolutely.

However, this study says nothing about other warming periods, including the current one.

Don't extrapolate too far from this simple analysis of one climatological effect.

I would go so far as to any paper that uses this time period or this new theory about this specific period as the sole basis to try to understand or interpret global warming is without merit.

Note my statement applies to papers for or against anthropogenic global warming.

Especially if deep sea warming did not occur before modern warming, this paper has nothing to do with modern global warming research, other than to warn scientists not to try to model modern warming after this time period, which had a different set of circumstances (i.e. deep sea warming).


RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 10/17/2007 5:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
just that it does not believe it did in this particular instance.
And other research papers have shown that warming predated CO2 in other particular instances. As far as we know now, CO2 has NEVER led to climate change anytime in the earth's past.

But hey, this time could be different, right?


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "again unless deep sea warming has occurred, this scenario can not be applied to modern warming. "

But we *have* noted inconsistent levels of deep-sea warming in modern times. Here's just one such example:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/...


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:24:47 PM , Rating: 1
C'mon Mike...
The link you said states that
Sea temperatures in one area of Northern sea rose 1/5000 of a degree C.

The abstract of the paper states that temperatures rose
~2 deg C
during the period 17 to 19 kpa.

Even if you were to extrapolate yearly 1/5000 degree C changes for 2k years, the same period as the study, you would only get a 0.4 deg. increase, as opposed to the 2 deg increase that the study stated.

Further, the warming the study stated was occuring at the South Pole, not the north and was warming Tropical deep seas, not northern ones.

Your data states the tiny bit of warming occured in the Northern Pacific by Alaska, not the tropics.

Your data does not apply clearly, so unless I find some convincing data that tropical/southern deep sea warming is occuring, it remains decisively clear that this study does not apply to modern warming.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"C'mon Mike...Even if you were to extrapolate...you would only get a 0.4 deg. increase
You're ignoring the point here. Deep-sea temperatures in the North Pacific shouldn't be rising at all, not over such a brief period. GHG-based global warming doesn't explain that. Deep-sea transport of heat from the Antarctic does...and it would also explain why the detected rise is smaller in the North Pacific than in the Antarctic region.

And yes, this particular study is for the Northern Pacific, but its hardly the only one. Here's another study for the which shows significant deep-sea warming in the area around both New Guinea and Barbados.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Here's another study for the which shows significant deep-sea warming in the area around both New Guinea and Barbados.


Link please?

Again, I would need to see data on modern tropical deep sea warming.

Also the data would have to be from before the current trend started, ie 1300 years ago, not warming that was occuring now.

Note that the study says the deep sea warming proceeded the CO2 incr. by 1300 years.

So if deep sea is only now minimally warming, after CO2 increase, it does not apply.

Unless you can give evidence deep sea warming occurred 1300 years ago, the theory in the study does not apply to modern times, you would agree, yes?


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 6:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hold on. I don't see where it actually states CO2 increases were preced 1300 years by deep sea warming. I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but I'd be careful.

To the point though, I think that you're of the mind that either this is happening now, or it isn't relevant. I think it's relevant because it shows that warming can naturally occur without a rise in CO2. It dispels the idea that CO2 fundamentally always causes warming - which has some significant ramifications in the AGW debate as it opens up a lot of questions. I think we can agree there - after that point, however, is where our opinions differ.


RE: Interesting...
By pliny on 10/18/2007 8:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
CO2 fundamentally always causes warming? I think there is a logic error here. Yes, extra CO2 will cause warming, but that doesn't mean that all warming is caused by CO2. I really doubt that there is any major belief that warming events (except the present) of the past million years were driven by CO2. Warming caused a rise in atmospheric CO2, because of reduced solubility in water.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 6:15:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Note that the study says the deep sea warming proceeded the CO2 incr. by 1300 years.
The study says Southern Hemisphere deep-sea warming preceeded CO2 increases by 1300 years. It then took several centuries for that heat to be transported to the Northern Hemisphere.

But again Jason, you're still missing the point. The study is relevant because the GHG theory assumes past conditions were similar enough to blame past warming on past CO2 increases, and then extrapolate that linkage to current events. If that past linkage doesn't exist, the assumption is invalid. Period.

So it doesn't matter whats happening to deep-sea temperatures today. Either way, the study still removes a major piece of the justification for GHG-based warming. Now, you can argue just how much of that it removes....but arguing the study isn't relevant if deep-sea temperatures aren't increasing today is just silly. I think you can see that.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 7:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The study is relevant because the GHG theory assumes past conditions were similar enough to blame past warming on past CO2 increases, and then extrapolate that linkage to current events. If that past linkage doesn't exist, the assumption is invalid. Period.

Exactly!


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stott's model links the forcing to periodic changes in the Earth's orbit which increase solar radiation over Antarctica. This eventually causes ice sheet retreat, which lowers ocean albedo, reflectivity. Additional warming is generated, a feedback effect which over 1,000 or more years, transports heat via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere. The model also explains why surface measurements of solar insolation fail to correlate with warming ... the heat transport process is very slow, and thus surface warming lags centuries behind changes in solar output.
It's worth noting, I think, that the paper links changes in the Earth's orbit to the warming, and the deep sea warming simply explains the process by which these changes warm the globe. If the Earth's orbit has been undergoing similar changes, it is very plausible that this scenario could be applied and happening right now.

You're right, though - I see nothing in the abstract relating the situation to modern times. There is only so much that can be said in 200 words while remaining scientifically accurate.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 4:53:54 PM , Rating: 5
A single study is rarely conclusive proof of anything in science. This particular study does, however, go a long way towards removing one of the primary tenets supporting GHG-based global warming.

Without the linkage between CO2 and past warming, the only evidence is theoretical calculations based on absorption spectrum, but that only yields a warming of 0.6-1.0 degree maximum.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Over what time period?


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:06:34 PM , Rating: 5
Based on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels, over whatever time period that takes to occur. Note that the relationship is logarithmic, however, so a second doubling would not lead to an additional 0.6-1.0 degree rise, but rather a much smaller factor.

This is due to the fact that CO2 only absorbs in a rather narrow band of the infrared, and thus its effect tends to saturate easily. It also helps to explain why in one past period of the Earth's history, CO2 levels were nearly 10 times higher than they are today, yet the Earth was locked in a severe ice age.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A single study is rarely conclusive proof of anything in science


Agreed.

However, I don't think this invalidates that CO2 causes warming, simply it indicates that a specific type of warming, deep sea temperature warming can proceed and likely cause CO2 rise and tropical warming.

The study does not state that CO2 cannot cause warming, merely that the warming at that time (17 to 19 thousand years ago) was not due to it.

If deep sea warming did not occur before modern global warming, than this scenario no longer is applicable, aside from a bit of extra knowledge on how future warming might work as I am sure you can see.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect Jason, you're missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, this paper is about past hisory, not the modern era. But the strongest evidence for blaming GHGs for modern warming is past history -- the correlation between CO2 rises and past warming events.

Remove that correlation, and the strongest evidence for the theory vanishes.

Obviously CO2 exerts some level of warming regardless. But in the words of one climatologist, the direct effects of CO2 are "the linoleum on the first floor of a 100-story building".


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:29:41 PM , Rating: 1
Good, this study removes the correlation for one warming period.

It says nothing however about the 1000s of other warming periods that occured through the climate history of the Earth.

Obviously the conditions stated in the study that cause CO2 increases did not occur before modern warming, so the study does not apply to modern times.

And the study does not state that CO2 increase cannot cause global warming, rather that other stuff (deep sea warming) can cause it as well.

About the only way this would weaken GW papers is if they based their arguments solely on this specific time period of warming, which I doubt is true of many serious, peer reviewed papers.

Global deep sea warming is not occuring in modern times, this study does not invalidate anthropogenic global warming theory.

You can gloss over this fact as much as you want, but it is a fundamental flaw in your argument.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 5:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the study does not state that CO2 increase cannot cause global warming, rather that other stuff (deep sea warming) can cause it as well.
Well, technically no, but in this case, CO2 was not the primary cause for warming at all. I don't recall offhand any other periods where studies have shown CO2 to be a primary cause of warming. That's certainly not to say they don't exist - I'm sure if anyone knows about them, you do, Jason.

quote:
Global deep sea warming is not occuring in modern times
Reference? And...
quote:
This eventually causes ice sheet retreat, which lowers ocean albedo, reflectivity. Additional warming is generated, a feedback effect which over 1,000 or more years , transports heat via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere
So, even if you're right, this process takes awhile. And nobody said it was a linear warming trend. In fact, I don't think anyone would expect it to be. So, your extrapolation from your earlier post really doesn't say much.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 5:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think I should add here - I said your extrapolation didn't say much - that's not true. It does show that we can't conclusively say based solely on it whether deep sea warming is happening or not.

My apologies.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 4:45:26 PM , Rating: 3
I might add that the mechanism suggested here is nothing new. I have seen numerous pro-GW media reports saying that global warming will cause increasing ocean temperatures, which will decrease its ability to absorb CO2, and hence cause a feedback effect making things even worse as CO2 is released from the oceans. This report suggests that warming caused CO2 to get released from the oceans, but that need not mean that the CO2 did not in turn make the warming much worse.

I don't see how this report does much, other than to show that if Al Gore's "CO2 caused warming graph" is to hold any weight then it's going to have to be made far too nuanced for your moviegoer to understand. I know the standard rebuttal, that CO2 is a negligible greenhouse gas, volcanoes are big, etc. etc., but those are rebuttals to the suggestion that we are NOW causing warming, and not relevant to this study in particular.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 4:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This report suggests that warming caused CO2 to get released from the oceans, but that need not mean that the CO2 did not in turn make the warming much worse.

Sounds like environmentalist bait-and-switch. In other words...well we were wrong about CO2 actually causing global warming...sorry about that...but now we think there is a possibility that what we now know is naturally-occuring global warming is going to release CO2 from oceans, and because of human contributions, that feedback effect is going to be ever so much worse than it otherwise would have been. So we need to worry about that now. Hmmm....


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 5:03:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
now we think there is a possibility that what we now know is naturally-occuring global warming is going to release CO2 from oceans, and because of human contributions, that feedback effect is going to be ever so much worse


Ah, but I never said "what we now know is naturally-occurring global warming". I agreed that naturally occurring warming can trigger the feedback mechanism, as this study shows and apparently as Al Gore's pretty graph showed (although he misrepresented it). But this in no way invalidates the claim that human CO2 emissions could cause warming (the CO2 is a mild-greenhouse gas argument could invalidate that claim though).

On an unrelated issue, cut the "liberal bait-and-switch" crap anyways. You know that political proponents on every side of an issue do the same thing; liberals are far from having a monopoly on that.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 5:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say "liberal" - only you said that - I said "environmental." And the reason I said that is that in nearly every environmental debate here on DT, someone proposes a bait-and-switch type argument. For example, someone writes a post conceding that CO2 is really not so bad but says we should cut down on use of autos anyway because of the other pollution they generate. Yeah - but we weren't talking about pollution - we were talking about CO2. You get the idea.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:16:17 PM , Rating: 4
All this double talk is confusing!! =[


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 9:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yesterday or the day before I believe you used the phrase "liberal bait-and-switch", but OK let's suppose you've only said "environmental bait-and-switch". I agree that there are lots of posts giving the impression you remark on, but I am fairly certain this is the result of poor phrasing, rather than "CO2 is really not so bad but" I am fairly certain that the posters really mean "Supposing CO2 were really not so bad, but ... is still bad".

In the case at hand I was saying the following:

Numerous Media Reports : Rising temperatures (due to man-made global warming) will decrease the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, causing releases of massive amounts of CO2 and a feedback loop causing further warming.

This Blog : Rising temperatures (due to natural warming) have in the past decreased the ocean's ability to ....

In short, these are in no way contradictory. On the other hand, I concur that the popular understanding is wrong, that CO2 increases were the original cause of past increases in temperatures. But this doesn't invalidate a claim that CO2 increases caused temperatures to increase in the past (the feedback mechanism argument); it only invalidates the "original cause" portion (in the abstract "nor can its early onset [of deep water warming] between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing"). But I think this was already well known, other than by the celebrities regularly trotted out by the media.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 10:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Let me take back part of what I just said. I assume the heat density of water is much higher than that of air, so that changes in atmospheric temperature would take centuries if not millenia to cause changes in deep sea temperatures, and to a lesser extent vice-versa. In short, changes in both may have a common cause, but as far as causality is concerned they are not likely to have more than a marginal effect on each other. Jason & Masher's debate in earlier postings seems to deal with this better than I can attempt to.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 10:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
While you're at it, why don't you also take back your statement that I used the term "liberal bait and switch" since I never used that term. I generally avoid the labels "liberal" and "conservative" in my posts.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/17/2007 10:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
OK, as I said, let's suppose you didn't use it. Sorry, oops, whatever you like, my mistake apparently. These pro/anti-GW discussions usually make me irritable because they tend to generate a lot of pointless name-calling and stereotyping (and although I try to be civil I also say things that amount to that sometimes).


RE: Interesting...
By Aarnando on 10/18/2007 9:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
You don't need to suppose that he didn't use it. You need to go back up to his original post, re-read it, and accept the fact that it says "environmentalist bait and switch."


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 8:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
From the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms,
quote:
Cut the crap: an impolite way of telling someone to stop saying things that are not true or not important

Notice the word "things", as in a repeated event. Obviously I can read a few lines above my post and see that TomZ used the words "environmentalist bait-and-switch". However he has repeatedly said "bait-and-switch" and my recollection was that this had been applied to other typically liberal topics as well, including with the phrase "liberal bait-and-switch". I do believe TomZ when he says that he has not used that phrase before, and hence my apology, but unless I re-read all of TomZ's past pasts posts I can do no more than "suppose" and "believe" that he has never said "liberal bait-and-switch".


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 8:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
You re-read all 5000 of my past posts?!? Wow, now that's what I call dedication!


RE: Interesting...
By Aarnando on 10/19/2007 12:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I find it's easier to stick to the topic at hand if I take a person's words for what they mean in the context of the current debate, and not add meaning to them based on something they may or may not have said in another debate. It's my way of "cutting the crap."


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/19/2007 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Good advice <:-I


RE: Interesting...
By just4U on 10/18/2007 12:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the perspective held by most who are not alarmists,scientists, or politicians is..

No matter what the cause now or in the future we do have to look for cleaner more efficient ways for man's interaction with the environment. Even if this whole global warming issue is full of hot air (pun intended)atleast it may drive awareness and new technologies...

Atleast that's what I am hoping.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
And that's exactly what I mean by bait-and-switch. In other words, getting everyone riled up about CO2, and at the last minute figuring out that it's not a real threat, and then justifying it by some other kind of possible benefits.

Here's the point: environmentalists need to be honest and rational about the real issues so that people can decide if they are really a problem or not. Anything beyond this, like what you see with AGW/CO2, is just pure deception.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 1:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Gimme a break. He did not say GW is hot air, it is clear he meant "Even if this whole global warming issue [turns out to be] full of hot air". It is not an admission of being wrong, only a statement that if GW turns out to be wrong then at least something good (in his opinion) was accomplished in the meantime.

Not your issue I suppose, but this is no different than if before the Iraq war someone were to have said "Even if it turns out the WMD issue is full of hot air, at least we will have gotten rid of that nasty SOB." Perhaps history will judge that Al Gore and George Bush were using bait-and-switch and should both be drawn and quartered as punishment for their [alleged] deceptions, but that is a different question than whether us peons are using bait-and-switch logic in our arguments.


RE: Interesting...
By TomZ on 10/18/2007 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree - the OP is (almost literally) saying that even if the whole AGW/CO2 thing is wrong, the emphasis on that may provide other benefits. My point is that, instead of manufacturing the entire AGW/CO2 mythology in the first place, let's instead talk frankly about the "other benefits." That way we can rationally consider them without having to make a panic decision over a threatended impending global disaster.

As has been pointed out to me many times, however, you have to create a crisis in order to motivate the populace. But I still think it's wrong.

And for the record, I don't think the Iraq war is in any way justified, since once of the primary reasons we went in (WMDs) was based on false intelligence. The ends do not justify the means.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 9:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Re Iraq, I qualified the statement because I did not intend to say that you were pro or anti the war, rather it was simply the first example that came to mind.

It seems that our disagreement here on "bait-and-switch" boils down to the phrase "manufacturing the entire CO2 mythology". We probably agree that "bait-and-switch" refers to luring someone KNOWINGLY using false precepts. To emphasize my previous comment further, IF Al Gore, James Hansen, Greenpeace, etc have even moderate suspicions that the CO2 hysteria they are pushing is false, then certainly they should be considered as despicable and it is definitely "bait-and-switch". But if Joe Environmentalist on Dailytech believes GW to be 100% true and says "let's cut CO2 and even if it turns out to have been wrong then it still had some good results", then there is no "bait-and-switch" because he believes GW to be occurring (sure he could be misguided, but that's a different issue).

While far from a perfect analogy, let me slightly modify something you once said (underline is Kuroyama's part):
quote:
we decided to avoid it [microwave popcorn] anyway for the kids and see how the research plays out. We just bought a popcorn popper and make it using the old-school method because anyways it may be healthier .

Suppose some fictional organization made this suggestion to parents. Would it be "bait-and-switch"? I don't think so, despite the suggestion that EVEN IF it turns out microwave popcorn is not bad there may still be some side benefit of having bought a popper. (popcorn and CO2 are far from similar, but I am just quibbling over what we mean by "bait-and-switch" here)


RE: Interesting...
By Keeir on 10/18/2007 3:02:51 PM , Rating: 3
You exhibiting an understanding of externalities and thier effect on the "market" of people's utilizes below.

If we place an extremely high externality value (in relation to actual value) to the production of CO2, some people will be very happy because this high externality value will drive certain technologies. The problem however is that a majority of people will be less happy due having to shift away from CO2 producing technology to other forms which are not as efficient or desirable.


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/18/2007 8:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think you responded to the wrong one of my posts as the externality discussion was elsewhere.

In any case, the post I was responding to was implicitly suggesting that regulation is necessary. I am saying that if the government is going to regulate then this means they believe there to be a negative externality, and in that case rather than regulating things it would be better to charge for that negative externality and then let the market decide what will succeed and fail. The income raised can be used for clean-up costs if the externality is pollution related, or given back to consumers for instance by cutting income taxes, i.e. there is no reason at all why taxing a negative externality need raise the overall tax burden.

This argument applies to CO2 as well. Regardless of whether or not it is bad for us, IF it has been decided to regulate then I'm saying it would be better to use market-based means as described in the previous paragraph. As for your last sentence, I think you'd agree with me (note the "IF" above), because market based means would not mandate that any particular technology be shifted away from, whereas regulation would mandate that certain technologies become completely unavailable.


RE: Interesting...
By chsh1ca on 10/18/2007 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really see it as "at the last minute" considering the debate is ongoing, and further research is being done.

Your "point" about environmentalists needing to be honest and rational is just ludicrous. Everyone on all sides of an issue has an agenda. History has proven (even extremely recently) that if you have an agenda, and need support both publicly and financially, honesty and rationalism have very little to do with anything.

What's bad about this is that people are picking "sides" in a scientific discussion. Science isn't supposed to have sides, just observations and data. Maybe that's incredibly naive of me though.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 4:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but that need not mean that the CO2 did not in turn make the warming much worse.
That's true, but if they have the data, it should be easy enough to include the later effects of CO2 in the model - which they may have done, but without being able to read the full article, there's no way to tell.

It does, however, show that CO2 didn't start the process.


RE: Interesting...
By cochy on 10/17/2007 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm obviously not a golfer, but how can solar radiation cause deep sear warming, if Sun light doesn't penetrate into the deep sea?

Keeping in mind I am talking about today's deep sea.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
According to my understanding of the paper's theory, solar radiation/sunlight caused sea warming at the poles which was transferred to the deep sea and eventually found its way to tropical seas.

In modern times there is no evidence that deep sea warming is occuring at a significant rate or that it occurred before the warming trend, to my knowledge.

Thus as I stated, what the study DOES prove is that the warming scenario of 17 to 19 kpa is not like the present one.


RE: Interesting...
By onelittleindian on 10/17/2007 5:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In modern times there is no evidence that deep sea warming is occuring at a significant rate
Masher2 gave you a link above that proved just that.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
His link did not prove that at all.

Read carefully my explanation of why.

Or simply look at his link's info and the abstract:

Study amt. of deep sea warming : 2.0 deg. C
Link amt modern "deep sea warming" : 0.0002 deg. C

Study loc of deep sea warming : Tropics, South Pole
Link about modern "deep sea warming": North Pole

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that his link does nothing to prove deep sea warming of the kind study referenced in the article is talking about has occured.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Study loc of deep sea warming : Tropics, South Pole
Link about modern "deep sea warming": North Pole
I think you missed the part of the theory where Southern warming is transported via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere.

The GHG theory of global warming doesn't explain any degree of deep-sea warming. You can't write off an inconvenient fact that easily.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you missed the part of the theory where Southern warming is transported via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere.


So why isn't there warming off Hawaii then as the currents would be passing there, correct?

quote:
The GHG theory of global warming doesn't explain any degree of deep-sea warming. You can't write off an inconvenient fact that easily.


Sure it does. If shallow seas warm, deep seas will as well. Its called convection. Deep sea currents due mingle with shallower waters, for example that is why deep sea fish are sometimes found by fishing boats.

Besides, thats not the focus of GHG theory, so whats your point.


RE: Interesting...
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 9:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it does. If shallow seas warm, deep seas will as well. Its called convection
C'mon Jason, this is beneath you. Convection doesn't explain warming this fast. The paper I linked to specifically detailed that point, demonstrating that GCMs predict a degree of warming less than 1% of what was actually measured.


RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 10/17/2007 5:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus as I stated, what the study DOES prove is that the warming scenario of 17 to 19 kpa is not like the present one.
I thought we agreed that a single study doesn't prove anything conclusively... Unless you have data that show that deep sea temperatures are not rising and the Earth's orbit is not changing, I don't think you can draw such a conclusion.


RE: Interesting...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/17/2007 5:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Touche, sorry for the malapropism.

You are correct--what I meant was that it does goes towards proving that (what I meant by DOES prove).

It does not go towards proving anything about modern warming, as some appear to think, which was my point.


RE: Interesting...
By werepossum on 10/18/2007 7:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, after all this I have to believe you are intentionally missing Asher's point. Everyone agrees CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas. And everyone agrees that rising temperatures produce more CO2 naturally, both through reduced solubility and because respiration processes increase faster than reduction processes with temperature increases.

The whole AGW theory centers on CO2 driving past warming spells and on pointing out that the very slight addition of CO2 by human sources will, over time, causing an ever-increasing forcing which will raise the planet's temperature to a point of crisis. Ignoring for a moment that this theory requires planetary CO2 production before humans to be a constant or at least of insignificant variation compared to the "huge" 3% added by humans over a tiny time frame, this is justified solely by the theory that past warming periods were driven by increases in CO2, regardless of how that CO2 was generated before evil white meat-eating Republicans first built SUVs. In other words, while the cause of the CO2 increases might be different, the system (Earth) reacted in the same manner, by heating up.

This study (and others like it) point out that the increases in CO2 occur after significant warming has occurred. Deep sea warming (or lack of it) does not matter one iota if your theory is that CO2 is the primary forcing agent in atmospheric warming. If these studies hold up, then the evidence that CO2 is, has ever been, or even can be the primary forcing agent in significant atmospheric warming is gone. I can't believe you can be unintentionally missing that.

As to Al Gore, he just bought a $2 million condo in San Francisco, on 3rd and Mission. About a click from the bay, where he says sea levels will soon rise 20 feet. Now, one theory is that he actually believes what he is saying and only bought this doomed condo to save some other poor sap from soon losing his only home...


RE: Interesting...
By Kuroyama on 10/19/2007 3:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
You might try reading the pliny-masher2 debate further up. Regardless of who you felt "won" their debate, perhaps it will further emphasize that Jason and many others disagree with your claim that "this [AGW theory] is justified solely by the theory that past warming periods were driven by increases in CO2".


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer













botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki