"Something fundamentally wrong" with CO2 theories - new study

Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models 'fundamentally wrong with the way temps and carbon linked' -- Blames 'Unknown Processes,' not CO2 for ancient global warming!  

'Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong'

Tuesday, July 14, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

A new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based. The new study discovered "something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

The study, which was published on July 14, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, found CO2 was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period and instead found “unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.” The press release for the study was headlined: "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong."

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

 

Read more

 

Get last week's #5 bestselling climate change book on Amazon US and UK:

 

Comments

[Sam Vilain]

For casual readers, this paper covers trends some 50 million years ago. The global circulation of the world was far different to now. It's quite likely that there were other dominating factors in such ancient times, but that doesn't shake understanding of current times.

[Sam Vilain]

btw Ian it's customary to 'hat tip' other blogs when you repeat their articles. Presumably you read this on Watts Up With That?

There are some nice obvious comments to be found there, such as that this study finds that in those times there was only a 70% increase in CO₂, but a 7°C increase in temperature - over 10,000 years. It's unlikely based on our understanding that CO₂ alone caused that increase, but possible given positive feedbacks which are (conservatively) not included in Global Climate Models. But it can hardly be the finding that shows increased CO₂ is not as dangerous as all that...

[peter]

Sam is right.

Further, I have performed some reference checking regarding this article.

I see that a conservative group called CFACT is behind this:

Follow these links:

http://www.cfact.org/site/board.asp

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1955/Study-shakes-foundation-of-climate-theory-Reveals-UN-models-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temps-and-carbon-linked--Blames-Unknown-Processes-not-CO2-for-ancient-global-warming

http://badgerherald.com/news/2009/06/29/updated_cfact_may_su.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow

Do these guys really say that environmental issues best countered by market forces. I rest my case.

[Ian]

Sam, with the greatest of respect, you don't think the esteemed study team might be aware of the fact they are studying ancient conditions, and to have factored that into their analysis when they say current models are flawed?

[Sam Vilain]

They didn't say that, they said:

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

(emphasis added)

Ie, they didn't say current models are flawed - they simply ran the current models to see what they would come up with, and it didn't account for it all.

It's an interesting and potentially quite scary find. Something caused warming above and beyond the sensitivity we can see in our current models 55 million years ago. We don't know what that is yet ... was it a huge increase in methane emissions by an explosion of mammalian ruminants who had an evolutionary stroke of luck 10m years after the 65m yo extinction event? Or just a positive feedback?

[Ian]

I think Sam that the quote, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models" is analogous to "flawed".

The point, which I've also made to Gareth Renowden, is that "unknown processes" means exactly that: unknown.

One can speculate that they might be feedback loops, but if in fact those unknown processes were the initial forcer then CO2 becomes the feedback, as it has in more recent times.

On the KISS principle, it is more likely that rising CO2 is a feedback from warming. The hunt for the real culprit continues.

And as I have also pointed out to others, the historical record has CO2 levels far higher than modern times and no discernible connection to temperature at all.

[Ian]

I forgot to add, the GCMs have also failed to predict the current easing off of temperatures despite rising CO2, nor could they account for the mix of cool and warm spots in the Arctic in recent years, so expecting the GCMs to successfully predict ancient cycles was a big ask at the best of times.

[Sam Vilain]

Hmm. I see what you mean about that quote. It's quite different from the guarded language of the rest of the release.

The thing is that Carbon and temperature aren't directly "linked" in GCMs; that's really what you run the GCMs to try to establish. The result - the 2CO₂ - is referred to as "climate sensitivity" and is by itself as meaningless as an LD50 value for a drug (the amount of a drug it takes to kill 50% of some poor laboratory animal). It would be tempting to go straight from an LD50 value to a safe dose, but the reality is that you can't. It's quite possible that no model can ever perfectly predict the exact behaviour of the system. Them's the breaks of the real world. However an LD50 value still gives you a very reasonable idea of the toxicity of a substance.

I can hazard a guess that what the researcher is referring to is that assumptions about vertical or latitudinal mixing do not hold for the climate during the PETM. That's about all their result, based on comparing geological changes with models can really say. They'd have to be (at least working with) atmospheric physics researchers to dispute the direct link.

You're no doubt alluding to Swanson & Tsonis (2009) with your last comment about the current "easing off" being somewhat unexpected. I've answered that before on this blog and of course it doesn't really buck the underlying trend - not yet. The posting on RealClimate gives some quite accessible notes from the author on it that make this clear. The shots that the likes of Watts fires at Swanson et al miss the mark, because they don't address the key point and instead emphasise sentences relating to uncertainty. The old FUD game again. Wake me if we drop back to pre-1970's temperatures, OK?

So yes - unforeseen and difficult to assess feedbacks - such as melting permafrost or a rapid disappearance of the WAIS - can amplify the system, potentially either way. "Uncertainty" exists. The thing is, we've run out of foreseen negative feedback effects. All we can see are unaccounted positive feedbacks - probably none of them strong enough to turn Earth to Venus but perhaps enough to start major areas of ice melting within the next century.

But assuming that those unforeseen effects will magically stop the earth from dangerous levels of climate change? I'd call that praying.

On the CO₂ being a feedback from warming - of course, no-one disputes that's what normally happens. The detail of the ice cores make this point quite clear. Normally warming starts, CO₂ is released, and amplifies the warming. That's what it means to say that they are co-dependent variables in equilibrium. It's really quite amateur to suggest that disputes the consensus position.

[Ian]

Just re the Hat Tip, the post above carries Marc Morano's byline and links back to Climate Depot.

I didn't spot the Watts version until this evening.

Normally, if I link through to the source and the extract I've published is explicitly bylined by someone else, I don't bother about the formal H/T per se.

[peter]

Ian

I think you have overlayed a strongly political article here with even more political twisting.

The Anthromorphic Global Warming theory is correct.

The warming period referred to is very different from anything that has happened in previous times.

Enormous emissions of carbon dioxide within similarly short timeframes (geologically) have been unheard of in the past.

Therefore references to other causes (known or unknown) would have little relevance to the question we are now faced with.

Sam says: " ... assuming that those unforeseen effects will magically stop the earth from dangerous levels of climate change? I'd call that praying."

Do you know how right you are Sam? On this site god is always assumed to be filling the caps - it is called Intelligent Design.

In other words if humans set the Earth on the wrong path, it won't matter, because the intelligent designer/great redeemer will put all on track!

[Ian]

Peter, I could try and tease your scientific understanding of AGW out of you, but that would take days, so I'll cut right to the chase: you have taken too narrow a perspective of the problem (and it's "anthropogenic" global warming, not anthropomorphic).

Firstly, while circumstances were different in ancient times in terms of planetary layout etc, none of that changes the radiative properties of CO2.

A CO2 molecule operates according to the laws of chemistry, the same way, throughout the universe. If basic atoms like carbon and oxygen did not behave in a universal fashion, then much of our scientific knowledge would have to be thrown out the window.

Thus, the CO2 didn't care where the continents were, or sea currents - if there was enough of it in the atmosphere and enough solar energy to be reflected back into the air, then the CO2 will do what CO2 does.

You are speculating on what caused the CO2 to rise back then, just as we speculate today on reasons for the increase in CO2.

What you and most warming believers fail to keep in mind is that measurements of CO2 from Mauna Loa or elsewhere are net readings, which means like musical chairs they give us a CO2 snapshot, but they don't tell us the movements in and out of the atmosphere.

To use another analogy, a one line bank balance doesn't tell you how much has been deposited or withdrawn that day.

CO2 could be rising because of humans directly creating CO2 emissions, but it could also be rising because of increasing warmth generated by the sun or other climate cycles.

On the otherhand, CO2 might not really be rising so drastically, it might be more likely that by cutting down forests and polluting oceans we have interfered with Earth's ability to reabsorb CO2 from the atmosphere, thus leaving more of it up there than previously.

The key question here is that if CO2 is imbalanced because of the latter reason, then cutting emissions might not be as effective as directing massive amounts of forestry to be replanted around the world. We could waste a lot of money on emissions cuts and get nowhere.

Therefore, finding out what the "unknown processes" are is actually critical to telling humanity which fork in the road is actually the best option.

What if we throw US$45 trillion at the wrong idea?

[Ian]

And before anyone starts quoting "isotope ratios" to me, an increase in natural and human-caused CO2, when set against decreased ability of the planet to re-absorb it and a preference for the non-human caused carbon in the first instance, would leave a human CO2 signature in the atmosphere but still not tell the full story.

[peter]

Ian

The cutting down of forests and polluting of oceans is all part of anthropogenic global warming is it not?

The human causes get addressed through appropriate debits and credits.

We have to reverse the trend

[AcidComments]

"The human causes get addressed through appropriate debits and credits"

Peter.

Don't complain then when you end up having to pay $$$ a year more just to live in taxes.

I hear Petrol prices could treble when carbon taxes are added.

BTW: Carbon Taxes don't stop CO2 emissions!

The magical mystical figure of 0.7C is still just that.

Politicians and scientists playing God and waving their magic wands to keep the temperature from rising by 2C is just that. Playing!

BTW: Consensus science has a long history of being wrong!

[AcidComments]

Of interest.

Warmist greetings and apologies...we throw eggs, they throw in the towel...

...when Al Gore famously declared that "the science is settled" over AGW, eggs were thrown by the sceptics. All landed on target. (Al Gore's face.) We now have what amounts to a series of admissions of defeat from the warmists...
Firstly a Canute like pledge to somehow limit global warming to 2 degrees C, and reduce emissions by 50% by 2050, and now an acknowledgement that computer projected climate change/global warming is based on shonky science, and that warming is not expected to resume until "roughly 2020".

http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-throw-eggsthey-throw-in-towel.html

[Ian]

Peter, yes, cutting down forests and polluting oceans is our problem, but $45 trillion spent on carbon emissions won't directly address that.

[peter]

Acid Comments says:

"Consensus science has a long history of being wrong!"

Scientists have a much better record than professional religious believers and advocates however!

And Ian, your new forests won't appear overnight. As I said, they must be part of a package to get the balance right.

Acid predictably wants pleasure now and pain for his grandchildren. Except that he is expecting an intelligent designer to step in and sort it all out.

It is very dangerous putting faith in the extreme right with or without Christian fundamentalism.

[AcidComments]

"Acid predictably wants pleasure now and pain for his grandchildren. Except that he is expecting an intelligent designer to step in and sort it all out. "

Peter,

You don't know what you're talking about.

BTW: I'm one of the most frugal people in my area when it comes to waste and electricity usage.

We were brought up that way and it has nothing to do with Greenie environmental dross propaganda.

Unfortunately many of the 'real environmental' issues are lost on the greenie brigade because they often spend too much time promoting non issue environmental issues. AGW is one of them. Scaremongering is great exploitation and fraud for the Green Nazis!

BTW: Peter. I've had personnel dealings with Greenpeace NZ. I'll tell you what if the rank and file payed up members of Greenpeace NZ knew what a pack of 2 faced hypocrites and frauds they're. They'd cancel their memberships in droves!

FYI: Only one Greenpeace Environmental scientist. He just happened to be a non-NZer in the end did resign from Greenpeace NZ over the issue. He was one of the few in the whole organisation with any integrity. It was a major international incident. Greenpeace NZ just didn't want to do anything much about it. Since they were also responsible for bringing in one of our Claytons Sacred cows in the firstplace. What a pack of Fraud Hypocrites of the highest order they're!!

I never had much time for Greenpeace in the firstplace. I was proved right. It's all about $$$ and keeping themselves in the limelight.

[AcidComments]

Of interest.

This might be melting the ice. :-)

Arctic sea full of huge blobs of floating 'goo'
Huge blobs of mysterious "goo" are floating in the Arctic sea off the coast of Alaska, according to local reports.

The "goo", which is believed to be formed of organic matter, is reportedly floating in strands of up to 15-miles long.

The US Coast Guard told the Anchorage Daily News that the strange find is not an oil product or a hazardous substance of any kind.

"It's definitely, by the smell and make-up of it, some sort of naturally occurring organic or otherwise marine organism," said Petty Officer 1st Class Terry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5835975/
Arctic-sea-full-of-huge-blobs-of-floating-goo.html

[peter]

Acid Comments

I am sure many subscribers will appreciate your strong commendation of Greenpeace.

I call it a commendation based on the veracity of other postings of yours that I have read!