Bishop Hill GeolSoc statement on climate change
Nov 2, 2010 Climate: other The Geological Society has issued a statement on climate change, which can be seen here.
I've skimmed it and it seems to veer between the sensible and the ridiculous. This bit struck me as particularly amusing:
In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms.
The idea of discussing what will happen to carbon emissions two hundred years or more into the future strikes me as, well, eccentric.
Another little bit which I noticed in passing was this sentence:
The Greenhouse Effect arises because certain gases (the so-called greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere absorb the long wavelength infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and re-radiate it, so warming the atmosphere. This natural effect keeps our atmosphere some 30ºC warmer than it would be without those gases. Increasing the concentration of such gases will increase the effect (i.e. warm the atmosphere more)19.
The paper cited at the end is this one. Read the title:
19 Walker, J.C.G., Hays, P.B. and Kasting, J.F., 1981, A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface-Temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans and Atmospheres 86, 9776-9782.
Reader Comments (67)
Obviously they only see what they want to see in the literature..
so what is the walker paper? geoengineering or natural feedback? (i tried a quick google search).
A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILIZATION OF EARTH'S SURFACE TEMPERATURE
James C. G. Walker
Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
P. B. Hays
Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
J. F. Kasting
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80302
We suggest that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is buffered, over geological time scales, by a negative feedback mechanism in which the rate of weathering of silicate minerals (followed by deposition of carbonate minerals) depends on surface temperature, and surface temperature, in turn, depends on carbon dioxide partial pressure through the greenhouse effect. Although the quantitative details of this mechanism are speculative, it appears able partially to stabilize earth's surface temperature against the steady increase of solar luminosity believed to have occurred since the origin of the solar system.
Received 22 October 1980; accepted 29 May 1981; .
Citation: Walker, J. C. G., P. B. Hays, and J. F. Kasting (1981), A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILIZATION OF EARTH'S SURFACE TEMPERATURE, J. Geophys. Res., 86(C10), 9776–9782, doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09776.
I thought the very foundation of climate science was that there is no such thing as a negative feedback.
Has anyone pointed this out to the people who write the programming for the computer models?
golf charley
You thought wrong. Climate models take into account both positive and negative feedbacks.
GC: This feedback is obviously on geological timescales, not in our life timescale. So it's still on message to say that.
One would have thought that with all the funding that has been sloshing around, there would have been advances made in the field since 1981.
I must remember to go out and buy some CO2 cylinders so that I can make sure my polytunnel and greenhouse are nice and warm this winter. About 10,000ppm should keep them about right. If it works I'll rip out my central heating system and put in a CO2 injection system. Gool old physics - solved our energy crisis with very little expense.
Phillip Bratby
Philip. You do know that if it wasn't for greenhouse gases, our atmosphere would be 20-30 degrees centigrade cooler than it is now, don't you? Your comment suggests you don't.
Oh no, it's back; best ignore.
"Oh no, it's back; best ignore."
Nov 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM | Phillip Bratby
i.e. - Philip hates being caught out.
Interesting that...'Greenland ice cores record that during the last glacial stage (100,000 – 11,500 years ago) the temperature there alternately warmed and cooled several times by more than 10ºC '
but a 0.8 degrees c in about 200 years has to be a man made phenomena.
thanks hr. altho paper doesn't look relevant except as another example of the common assumption that CO2 is the be all and end all of GHGs.
yes Zeb
Only 3.0C of that value is due to the greenhouse gas CO2,
Of which 96% of CO2 is naturally emmited)
and only 3% of that 3.0C is down to AGW
less than 1 TENTH of a degree......
Many if not most Geologists are known to be sceptical towards AGW. I wonder if they will allow these bureaucrats to continue to misrepresent their judgements.
'Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <B>clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation'
Is it possible to determine whether a CO2 molecule was emitted by natural causes or human ?
Barry Woods
Could you provide a source for that please Barry?
Phillip Bratby
Do remember to warm the CO2 cylinders before releasing the plant fertilizer, otherwise the drop in pressure will have a cooling effect.
A sort of negative feedback before the warming effect.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide, compared to 6.14 gigatonnes in 1990.[14] In addition, land use change contributed 1.20 gigatonnes in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatonnes in 1990.[14]
This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997......
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere)
So wiki suggests that 97% of atmospheric CO2 is natural....and of the 3% that's anthropogenic 57% is absorbed by the oceans...
Confused,
If you're responding to my request to Barry for a source, then you're answering a completely different question, certainly not the one I asked. I asked Barry for a source for his claim that of the 30 degrees heat that greenhouse gases give the Earth, that only 3% of that is down to CO2.
Could I also suggest referencing papers as a credible source, not Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, the committee producing the statement is dominated by academics from departments already heavily committed to AGW theory. So, overlain on a reasonable outline of the dominance of natural climate change in the geological record, instead of a frank admittance of the conflicting theories uncertainties and controversy, we get yet more dutiful homage to policy dogma on CO2.
Zed, Have you got a greenhouse? If so why not try Phillip's wheeze? What you will probably find is that the hothouse plants will love the CO2.
Geologist are the most understanding and practical types when it comes to climate change
Either 'we' are wrong, or a mole has infiltrated the Geological Society.
I await a spate of disagreement to erupt from geological circles.
John in France
Err, I'm just going to hope your comment is failed sarcasm. Couple of little pointers for you though:
1) A greenhouse, and a greenhouse gas, do not actually work in the same way.
2) plants needing CO2, doesn't actually mean that CO2 isn't the main contributor to AGW. The two are not what is called 'mutually exclusive'.
So from ice core data we have the knowledge that tells us that there have been huge swings in temperature of up to 10ºC throughout Earths history. The positive swings giving interglacial spells of around 12,000 years before dropping back into glaciation for 100,000 years and this has happened on several occations as recorded.
The last interglacial period of abrupt increase happening 11,500 years ago so that we are currently sat at the end of a high on millenium scales which we are told is regulated by the greenhouse effect to provide an animal friendly habitat of 'average global temperature' of aprox 15ºC.
Forgive me for my openess but surely the scientific priority is that we have approx 500 years to learn how to maintain this temperature and prevent the colapse of the greenhouse effect before 'bio diversity' is consigned to the history books again.
It surely is not the case that the current reserves of fossil fuels are being tagged for 500 years into the future to enable us to burn our way through changes in the greenhouse effect?
Where are the papers providing insight as how to prevent global temperatures from falling and explaining why the greenhouse effect falters on a regular basis?
@confused: "Is it possible to determine whether a CO2 molecule was emitted by natural causes or human ?"
Plants have a lower C13/C12 (isotopes) ratio than is normal in the atmosphere, so if we burn fossil fuels we add this lower ratio to the atmosphere and hence the atmospheric C13/C12 lowers over time. To measure the ratio climate scientists use tree rings, which absorb atmospheric CO2 and therefore show the change in the C13/12 ratio over time. I haven't read the literature on this, so don't know how they separate out forest fires and such natural events, but I guess they don't try.The change in ratio over the last 150 years or so is 0.15%. It would appear to me that this is an area ripe for further research, for instance it's not obvious that this proves the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere by 100ppm is wholly due to humans burning fossil fuels. Certainly the IPCC says that around 50% of the recent warming can expained by natural forcings, but it's not clear to me that they've assumed any natural increase in CO2 caused by the warming and the oceans giving up CO2 after the MWP and the rise in temperature caused by coming out of the LIA. Complicated old business innit.
Zed
erm...if its good enough for William Connelly it should be good enough for you surely!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
confused
So your idea of debate is to find the worst example of something, and then model yourself upon that? Thankfully science isn't a lowest common denominator discipline*, or it would rarely move forwards.
*some bits of maths actually are lowest common denominator**
**and some other bits of science using statistics.
This reads like a statement from managers of tractor factory under a communist regime - simply a pretence.
To paraphrase an old anti-communist sentiment uttered by the masses, "The consenus pretend to talk about the settled science, we pretend to do it."
Geronimo
Where do you get scientific grants from, for research that might question AGW theory?
Confused
Wikipedia is only reliable for promoting AGW science, as proven by WC. Without Wikipedia, AGW would have died of cold already.
With falling world temperatures, and US elections, AGW science gets closer to the Water Closet by the day
@ZDB
"So your idea of debate is to find the worst example of something, and then model yourself upon that?"
Touche. 'RealClimate' regular, are you?
Stop the nonsense please.
zed:
this paper tries to give CO2 contribution of around 20%. but goes on to explain why this information alone is relatively unimportant:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/inpress_Schmidt_et_al.pdf
the debate is about changes to contribution not overall present contribution.
"Is it possible to determine whether a CO2 molecule was emitted by natural causes or human ?"
As noted, yes - see e.g.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page33.htm
Though the argument has its critics, I am reliably informed that the physics is in general terms incontrovertible.
(BTW, the web site as a whole is a resource that IMHO many sceptics would do well to consult and all supporters of AGW theory should be compelled to.)
@ZDB: Don't know where Barry was coming from but perhaps he's using the logic that with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at 280ppm the earth was warmed by some 33C. It is now being warmed to 33.7 (IPCC), and half of that increase can be explained by natural forcings (IPCC) so let's say 0.4C is a result of an increase of 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, therefore going back in time and taking the same metric, i.e. 100ppm of CO2 causes an increase of 0.4C (yes I know it's logarithmic, but it's neglible) and assuming that the 280ppm would have caused the same warming in proportion as the observed warming from CO2 today, then the 280ppm of CO2 contributed 1.12C to the 33C increase from GHGs. That is approximately 3.3% of the warming caused by GHGs.
And there in lies the problem the temperature increase from a 30% increase in CO2 is a negligible 0.4C, it's a travesty, the heat is just disappearing out of our system.
Zed
You probably meant to say 'highest common factor'. Let's leave the metaphorical use of 'lowest common denominator' to those ignorant of mathematics.
my mistake: roy spencer argues this r/e this paper.
but wherever it takes the discussion, i don't mind.
(sorry if its off topic, bish)
golf charley
No easy way to say this, but your comment is full of utter rubbish.
If you are applying for a grant for research, you are much more likely to receive funding if you seem able to make a case for something that runs contrary to consensus, rather than confirm what everybody already knows.
Your idea that the only thing that has kept AGW going is Wikipedia is silly and groundless, 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion that AGW is the correct theory, because that's what all their work tells them. There are hundreds of published peer-reviewed papers showing AGW to be the correct theory, almost none saying otherwise.
Your comment about falling World temperatures is also highly dubious. The last decade is the hottest on record, and this year is still (last time I checked) on target to be the hottest ever recorded. What are you grounds for saying temperatures are falling. And please don't embarasses yourself by cherry picking and distorting a Phil Jones quote from the BBC interview.
Re Confused
Personally I'm unconvinced. Like Geronimo says, some of it's based on assumptions around the isotope ratio. Some of it is common sense. We know roughly how many coal stations and cement works there are so can guesstimate emissions from those. Land use changes and natural emission seem far less certain and they're shown in AR4 WG1. Then there are more assumptions and estimates made around CO2 uptake by oceans and the biosphere which lead to the supposed imbalance between CO2 emissions and absorbption. Throw in some ideas about CO2 persistence and we end up with the justification for carbon trading. Majority is still natural though, and naturally increases as it warms.
Currently the imbalance doesn't seem that unmanageable but the issues really about what may happen as developing nations develop to the same levels of lifestyle and consumerism as we've got. That'll mean a lot more CO2 emissions, if those nations don't adopt low CO2 generation and industry. Whether that'll actually lead to any dramatic global warming and create problems is still one of life's great unanswered questions though.
The troll has returned. Must be bored with the Daily Mail.
"The troll has returned. Must be bored with the Daily Mail."
Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM | Natsman
Well it's all thanks to you, bringing me here by posting how you manipulate Daily Mail voting and encouraging people here to do the same.
golf charley; "Geronimo
Where do you get scientific grants from, for research that might question AGW theory."
Charley (or is it golf?), I don't believe you can get a grant in any branch of science to disprove accepted science. As for disproving AGW, it is impossible to disprove because it is infinitely variable, and, better still, based on guesses rather than empirical science. Hence the many refutations and observed weather conditions are readily embraced into the theory. For example global warming will cause cold winters, with increased snow caused by the increased precipitation sits comfortable with the himalayan glaciers reducing because of decreased precipitation.
The Geological Society, "While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun). This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation."
GS are stating that recent warming over the past 40 years does not have a geological basis. GS state that the warming is due to man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere (the cause) that results in a decrease in Artic sea ice extent, resulting in another increase in warming, resulting in the release of even more greenhouse gasses (positive feedback cycle).
That flies in the face of all geological evidence (4 billion years worth) that clearly shows that there has never been a runaway effect in global temperatures associated with the release of greenhouse gasses (which have 5, 10, 20 times higher than current levels today). The release of greenhouse gasses will not lead to a catastrophic increase in global temperatures.
It also ignores the instrumental data from Antarctica of the past 40 years. Antarctica has been cooling for the last 40 years and Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing. This proves that warming and cooling at the poles are regional effects, not global, and so must be natural in origin. CO2 may be increasing globally but there is no net warming at the poles. It just hasn't happened.
This GS statement is simply an act of faith, a pretence, and has nothing to do with science.
The GS do provide evidence for natural, negative feedbacks though when it mentions the PETM, and says
In all of these events it took the Earth’s climate around 100,000 years or more to recover, showing that a CO2 release of such magnitude may affect the Earth’s climate for that length of time
No runaway effect and natural recovery.
@ZDB: "If you are applying for a grant for research, you are much more likely to receive funding if you seem able to make a case for something that runs contrary to consensus, rather than confirm what everybody already knows."
That is simply not true, you will get grants where the grantor believes your doing useful work, if you applied for a grant to prove the "steady state" theory of the universe you almost certainly not get it. I have never come across a grant that has been made for research into disproving a theory, science, like everything in life, is driven by fashion, and scientists, like the rest of us, are driven by getting money for their work.
and scientists, like the rest of us, are driven by getting money for their work. So follow the fashion.
The Geol Soc has posted interesting letters from Peter Whiteside and Joe Brannon concerning the Bob Ward Geoscientist affair.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/letters
Instead of running computer models why not study the evidence provided by the best full size, to scale, one to one representation model we have of the Earth and its climate system - the Earth itself.
The hypothesis of increasing atmospheric carbon-dioxide leading to inevitable thermal runaway has been tested, and refuted, by repeated natural runs of very much higher levels than now for prolonged periods back then.
If the warming and positve feedbacks that must follow a spike in the amount of carbon-dioxide have up til now somehow been countered by fortunate natural processes tending the other way then 1. CO2 is not the mover, shaker and climate driver it's made out to be and 2. What were those countervailing processes?
From their own website is can be seen that this statement passed through stages of Working Group, Drafting Group, External Affairs Committee and Council with revision possible at each stage.
The working group comprised 4 from various Cambridge departments, 3 from one Leeds department and 1 each from Cardiff, Open and Royal Holloway. Two members of that group are FRS.
Their raison d'être for producing a policy statement is not directly stated but may be in response to a Department of State consultation;
"On receipt of a consultation to which the Society might respond (and has the time and resources to do so), we will establish a panel of experts- in consultation with Council, the External Affairs Committee and the chairs of any Specialist Groups or Joint Associations directly concerned with the field in question."
So this is a process undertaken to respond to a political question, answered by those "directly concerned with the field in question".
So what joint associations / specialist groups could be consulted? Their website lists many, with three possibilities;
1. Environment Group: "Plans are currently underway to develop the Society's Environment pages, details will be published here shortly."
2. Gaia Earth Systems Science Group: "Chair: Sir Crispin Tickell"
3. Joint Association of Geoscientists for International Development: (empty page)
Are we to believe that Gaia was in involved in proposing the Working Group?
Re: ZDB
Source please.
I am aware of many papers reconstructing past temperatures but many of these are of dubious quality and dont prove (or disprove) any cause or effect.
There are even more papers that assume AGW and predict impacts (eg. more/less hurricanes, rising sea level, dying coral, increased disease vectors etc) but their base starting point is that AGW is correct so these don't prove anything.
Then there are papers that use computer models in an attempt to prove AGW but many of the processes these models purport to simulate are still to poorly understood to simulate with any degree of accuracy.
What I wasn't aware of was the "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers showing AGW to be correct.
"Source please."
TerryS
Hi Terry. The best source by far is Anderegg 2010. Doran 2009 is also useful, principally because it uses a different methodology and comes it with the same result, reinforcing the likelihood of 97% being the correct figure.
If one goes by published, peer-reviewed and unrefuted papers, the figure would be north of 99%, so 97% seems a good conservative estimate.
Zed,
No sarcasm intended. Please explain to us the difference between a greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse effect.