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)
The News section of the October 2010
Communications of the ACM has an article
about the release of scientific code: "Should Code be Released?"
(doi:10.1145/1831407.1831415), bylined to Dennis McCafferty. It
includes the following:
@ John in france
Greenhouses (that you grow plants in) concentrate heat by preventing air heated by radiation (and by conduction from surfaces heated by radiation) from mixing with the rest of the atmosphere by convection.
Greenhouse gases delay the release of energy from the earth and atmosphere to space by absorbing and later re-emitting infra-red radiation.
Odd that the same term is used for two such different things, isn't it ?
Besides, re the 55m year event:
"Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming"
(http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo578.html)
I really have to take issue with the logic of the following argument in the GeolSoc climate change statement:
"The atmosphere of the past 800,000 years can be sampled from air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores. The concentrations of CO2 and other gases in these bubbles follow closely the pattern of rising and falling temperature between glacial and interglacial periods. For example CO2 levels varied from an average of 180 ppm (parts per million) in glacial maxima to around 280 ppm during interglacials. During warmings from glacial to interglacial, temperature and CO2 rose together for several thousand years, although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction. Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt eventually caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train. Additional positive feedback reinforcing the temperature rise would have come from increased water vapour evaporated from the warmer ocean, water being another greenhouse gas, along with a decrease in sea ice, and eventually in the size of the northern hemisphere ice sheets, resulting in less reflection of solar energy back into space."
The argument is very similar to one argued by Gavin at Realclimate.
Having downloaded the Vostok ice core data and run a cross-correlation between CO2 and temperature it is easy to demonstrate that the peak cross-correlation lags by 800 years, with temperature rising first. Instead of simply concluding that in the case of historical data in ice cores it is the temperature rise (driven by Milankovitch cycles) which causes CO2 buildup and this has no lasting effect on the atmosphere, instead the AGW argument has to use the following logic:
1. Milankovitch cycle causes slight temperature rise.
2. Temperature rise releases CO2 from a warming ocean
3. The CO2, via positive feedback, reinforces the temperature rise
4. Additional positive feedback reinforcing the temperature rise comes from water vapour increase.
5. Some other, unknown mechanism of sufficient magnitude overcomes all of the positive feedbacks and causes a return to ice age conditions again.
Here are some very simple questions/observations:
(a) If the Milankovitch cycle triggers the CO2 response which causes the warming how come we have cooling again? This implies that the Milankovitch cycle of cooling is easily strong enough to overcome any CO2 effect or we invoke the "unknown" effect.
(b) How can a system dominated by two positive feedback mechanisms be stable?
(c) The water vapour hypothesis is required because the CO2 physics is not sufficient to give the warming observed (either then or now). The water vapour positive feedback hypothesis is unproven and not even the sign of the effect of water vapour in the atmosphere on temperature is known.
(d) If we invoke the "unknown" mechanism to explain how we can return to ice age again what is the "unknown" mechanism that causes a return to ice age after overcoming all the positive feedbacks from CO2 and water vapour?
Applying Occam's Razor, surely the following theory explains the ice core observations regarding temperature and CO2 rather neatly:
1. Milankovitch cycle causes temperature to rise and fall.
2. Temperature changes cause CO2 to rise and fall.
3. Er, that's it....
There is a comment on the 2010 article by Anderegg et al (see comment by Zeds above at 2.09 pm) at Roger Pielke Snr's site: pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/.../comments-on-the-pnas-article-expert-credibility-in-climate-change-by-anderegg-et-al-2010/
(Sorry, I don't know how to make this a direct link - any advice?)
ThinkingScientist
How are politicians supposed to destroy economiesand control populations if it is that simple?
Is Mr Milankovitch still about and can we tax the manufacture of his cycle?
Thinking scientist: The Vostok data appears to show that, for any given stable isotope proxy temperature within the observed range, the associated CO2 value tends to be higher during cooling episodes than during warming episodes. It's hard to reconcile this observation with the proposition put forward by the Geol Soc that CO2 change (with or without additional positive feedback from water vapour) was acting as a major positive feedback in response to a small initial temperature change.
Hello Robbo, haven't seen you here before.
Thanks for standing in for Zed.
So in a nutshell, the heat reflected from the earth's surface radiates back up until retained by the GHG which then radiates it back down to us added to the incoming heat of the sun, so that's why it's getting hotter and hotter down here. Hmm, doesn't that lead to overunity?
Anderegg 2010 Logic Summary
I write without intending criticism of anyone's religion, unless that religion is AGW
Try reading your local Christian Dioscesan Magazine. Or other religious publication.
You will find no articles written about atheism
You will find no articles written by atheists (maybe a few ads)
Letters in praise of articles will probably be published
Letters criticising articles by Christians may be published, but with an editorial comment.
Letters from atheists will not be published, and require no comment
Atheists will not bother writing further letters
If you review your magazine with similar from other diosceses, you will find that all articles and letters broadly support the basic message. Atheists may post their opinions elsewhere, but surprisingly, they have never been accepted in a Dioscesan magazine.
This proves the message to be correct, and that atheists are too stupid to get published in accepted magazines.
You can then say that the religion is proven by the consensus of intelligent people.
The only religion ever to rely on such unscientific logic is AGW
Thinking Scientist
The recent report from the French Academie des Sciences gets into the same muddle:
"Ice cap extents and climate during the Quaternary can be determined from analyses of ice cores. These show both an oscillation between glacial and interglacial periods and a total stability during the last few millennia, indicating the existence of an effective negative feedback, primarily the emission of terrestrial infra-red radiation. The swings between glacial and interglacial periods, on the other hand, seem to be affected by strong positive feedbacks between temperature, CO2 levels and the extent of Northern hemisphere ice caps for the fastest variations."
What changes an effective negative feedback into a strong positive feedback?
Another Royal Society favour called in.
"The only religion ever to rely on such unscientific logic is AGW"
Nov 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM | golf charley
This is one of my favourite denier arguments. Climate science works in exactly the same way as every other discipline of science in the world. Just like every other branch of science, it is advanced through papers published in journals, having first been reviewed by the author's peers, to make sure it is worthy of publication.
In every other branch of science, it works fine. But because deniers don't like the findings of those papers in climate science, they say that just for this one discipline, for no particular reason, the whole system breaks down.
Still works for all the others of course.
There are other people who use the same argument as you:
- People who believe the Bilderberg group runs the World cannot get the financial implications of this published in economics journals.
- Creationists cannot get their articles published in natural science journals. Again, they say this is a fault of the system, rather than their beliefs.
- Flat-Earthers cannot get their articles published in geography journals. Again, they blame the closed system, rather than the severe flaws in their papers meaning they cannot pass peer-review.
Interestingly, all of the above have had some minor success getting the odd sympathetic article published, which they loudly trumpet as proof of the science. They also dismiss the overwhelming consensus view, and claim it is not actually consensus, with endless reference to a tiny number of sympathetic crank scientists.
ZDB
Would you please mark the beginning of your posts with some identifier such as "FROM ZDB" so that we will know immediately to scroll beyond you rantings. You are most tiresome. Perhaps you would be happier posting on a Flat World -- Creationist -- or anti-Bilderberg Group Blog -- if any such thing exist.
The AAPG is the worlds largest professional organisation for geologists, with approximately 31,000 members. They require the highest standard of professional integrity and ethics. (AGW activists however dismiss them as in the pay of big oil, and anyone associated with petroleum must also therefore be inherently biased and corrupt.)
The AAPG's Statement on Climate Change is rather good, and worthy of comparison with that newly issued by the Geol Soc. The AAPG statement follows-
The Issue
In the last century growth in human populations has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere.
Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.
This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.
Background
Geologists study the history of the Earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth ’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.
Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data.
These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models. To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years.
Statement
AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate, specifically including the geological, solar and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future.
AAPG supports research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain.)
AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery.
AAPG supports measures to conserve energy, which has the affect of both reducing emissions and preserving energy supplies for the future.
It would be interesting to see what % of their members would agree to that statement. Then do the same exercise for the GeolSoc and theirs.
Geronimo
"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."
is a non sequitur - Plants do indeed have low C13/C12 ratio but to then extrapolate that to petroleum (wrongly described as fossil fuels) is illogical.
No one, and I mean NO ONE has managed to sponteously produce high Dalton number hydrocarbons from subjecting biomass to the pressures and temperatures thought to exist in the lower crust. The only hydrocarbon which can be produced by burying biomass to these depths is methane, CH4.
Hence the rest of the argument must fall on this logical error.
The thing about the finding that most of the increase in CO2 is manmade is the conclusion that therefore the Earth must be somehow able to distinguish between manmade and the natural CO2 that constitutes around 98% of the total CO2 flux (no reference necessary as everyone should really know this). This doesn't make any sense though and the only (flawed) explanation given is the "overflowing bathtub model" where apparently everything in nature is in balance and cannot cope with our sudden injection of an extra 2% pa. However the error bars in the CO2 estimates are larger than the residual.
The isotope ratio studies are set against this background of academic innumeracy and can be safely ignored. In reality, once Mauna Loa CO2 was found to be rising at an unprecedented rate when compared with the Antarctic ice core data then it was agreed that man was the culprit - because what else can it be? All the rest is BS. They cannot explain why nature cannot soak up our puny emissions. All they can truly say is that it appears that it obviously doesn't - that is if the Mauna Loa / Law Dome splice truly does represent the reality of the CO2 increase. If it doesn't then you have to come up with alternative data from somewhere to prove that.