Was the Younger Dryas caused by cosmic ray flux?

The Younger Dryas, also referred to as the Big Freeze, was an abrupt and unexplained relapse into a glacial cold climate when the earth was emerging out of the last ice age. The dip is clearly seen in the traces below at about 11-12,000 years before present.

The shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation is usually blamed, but this paper from 2000 suggests solar mediated cosmic ray flux could be responsible.

The concentration of radiocarbon, 14C, in the atmosphere depends on its production rate by cosmic rays, and on the intensity of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and other reservoirs, for example the deep oceans. For the Holocene (the past approx11,500 years), it has been shown that fluctuations in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations have been caused mostly by variations in the solar magnetic field. Recent progress in extending the radiocarbon record backwards in time has indicated especially high atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations in the Younger Dryas cold period, between 12,700 and 11,500 years before the present. These high concentrations have been interpreted as a result of a reduced exchange with the deep-ocean reservoir, caused by a drastic weakening of the deep-ocean ventilation. Here we present a high-resolution reconstruction of atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations, derived from annually laminated sediments of two Polish lakes, Lake Gociacedilzdot and Lake Perespilno. These records indicate that the maximum in atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations in the early Younger Dryas was smaller than previously believed, and might have been caused by variations in solar activity. If so, there is no indication that the deep-ocean ventilation in the Younger Dryas was significantly different from today’s.

The difficulties that the climate science liberals have in explaining the Younger Dryas have been raised at ClimateAudit. Largely the long timescale for accumulation and absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not consistent with abrupt climate change. Changes must be on the same time scale as the forcings, and rapid changes must be explained either by high intrinsic variability in the system, or by sudden changes in system states. RealClimate in a recent post at least entertained a comet strike theory, perhaps an indication of the waning support for the shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation as an explanation.

We have been looking at the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) theory of Nir Shaviv in the last few posts. CRF can vary relatively rapidly, when the sun shuts down its sunspot activity, or from cosmic sources. The scale is consistent with abrupt climate change. I don’t want to make the same mistake as climate liberals, and start blaming everything on the latest convenient explanation. But given the high concentration of atmospheric 14C during the Younger Dryas cold episode appears widely supported, does this not suggest an increase in CRF as the cause?

REFERENCES

Variations of Younger Dryas atmospheric radiocarbon explicable without ocean circulation changes Nature 403, 877-880 (24 February 2000) | doi:10.1038/35002547; Received 23 April 1999; Accepted 21 December 1999
Tomasz Goslar, Maurice Arnold, Nadine Tisnerat-Laborde, Justyna Czernik & Kazimierz Wie cedilckowski

  • Geoff Sherrington

    People like JPL who have to steer satellites with good accuracy in time and space have to be good at modelling the orbit of the earth and its perturbations. They have to know what temperature change to expect when the earth changes distance to the Sun. The subject is quite complex as the demands rise and the problems are not all solved as I write. There are almost as many periodicities as authors.

    The Nir types of papers on flux have been in my reading for years and I have held a nagging feeling that they have to play a part. However, it is difficult (but I suppose not impossible) to separate the effects and attribute numbers to them. The big problem is that climate change numbers are so small and noisy and over a long time, so that you have to go into the fine detail to get good proxies.

  • Geoff Sherrington

    People like JPL who have to steer satellites with good accuracy in time and space have to be good at modelling the orbit of the earth and its perturbations. They have to know what temperature change to expect when the earth changes distance to the Sun. The subject is quite complex as the demands rise and the problems are not all solved as I write. There are almost as many periodicities as authors.

    The Nir types of papers on flux have been in my reading for years and I have held a nagging feeling that they have to play a part. However, it is difficult (but I suppose not impossible) to separate the effects and attribute numbers to them. The big problem is that climate change numbers are so small and noisy and over a long time, so that you have to go into the fine detail to get good proxies.

  • Anonymous

    Geoff, I am not so sure about that. Is that what is impeding acceptance? I have a post in mind, to work out the probability Nir is wrong. From what I can see the changes are at least 5 sigma, way less than any significance that I have seen for CO2 as an explanatory variable. 5 sigma is physics level certainty, while climate scientists are happy with 1 sigma.

    In all the correlative modelling I have done, TSI always has a very strong signal, explaining more of the variability than anything else, not even close. The problem has always been that TSI forcing is too small, or sensitivity of Temp/Watts would have to be too large. But if TSI is amplified, then that is the answer.

  • http://landshape.org/enm davids

    Geoff, I am not so sure about that. Is that what is impeding acceptance? I have a post in mind, to work out the probability Nir is wrong. From what I can see the changes are at least 5 sigma, way less than any significance that I have seen for CO2 as an explanatory variable. 5 sigma is physics level certainty, while climate scientists are happy with 1 sigma.

    In all the correlative modelling I have done, TSI always has a very strong signal, explaining more of the variability than anything else, not even close. The problem has always been that TSI forcing is too small, or sensitivity of Temp/Watts would have to be too large. But if TSI is amplified, then that is the answer.

  • PI

    “The difficulties that the climate science liberals have in explaining the Younger Dryas have been raised at ClimateAudit. Largely the long timescale for accumulation and absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not consistent with abrupt climate change. ”

    Be fair. I don’t think anyone has ever tried to attribute the Younger Dryas event directly to atmospheric CO2. The usual hypothesis involves a rapid freshwater hosing from ruptured glacial ice dams or the like. CO2 is only implicated insofar as it contributed to the earlier deglaciation.

  • PI

    “The difficulties that the climate science liberals have in explaining the Younger Dryas have been raised at ClimateAudit. Largely the long timescale for accumulation and absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not consistent with abrupt climate change. ”

    Be fair. I don’t think anyone has ever tried to attribute the Younger Dryas event directly to atmospheric CO2. The usual hypothesis involves a rapid freshwater hosing from ruptured glacial ice dams or the like. CO2 is only implicated insofar as it contributed to the earlier deglaciation.

  • PI

    And now that I’ve looked at the Goslar paper, your post gives a misleading characterization of it. Contrary to your claim, they don’t suggest that the Younger Dryas cooling was due to solar variations. They suggest that changes in radiocarbon during the Younger Dryas may be due to solar variations.

    The theory they’re discussing is whether the YD radiocarbon change was due to changes in the ocean carbon cycle or due to something else. It’s a theoretically open question because, according to their paper, it’s not clear whether a thermohaline shutdown even predicts a large radiocarbon change (you could shut down the northern carbon sink but might strengthen the southern one). This is not “cause of the Younger Dryas” question, it’s a question of what (if anything) happened to the carbon cycle in response to the Younger Dryas, and why.

    In short: this paper doesn’t address causes of the Younger Dryas and doesn’t exclude a THC shutdown as a cause of the Younger Dryas. It just suggests that a THC shutdown, if it happened, didn’t cause a large change in radiocarbon, and that the observed change was due to something else. It also notes the existence of models which suggest, in agreement with their hypothesis, that a THC shutdown would only produce small changes in radiocarbon.

  • PI

    And now that I’ve looked at the Goslar paper, your post gives a misleading characterization of it. Contrary to your claim, they don’t suggest that the Younger Dryas cooling was due to solar variations. They suggest that changes in radiocarbon during the Younger Dryas may be due to solar variations.

    The theory they’re discussing is whether the YD radiocarbon change was due to changes in the ocean carbon cycle or due to something else. It’s a theoretically open question because, according to their paper, it’s not clear whether a thermohaline shutdown even predicts a large radiocarbon change (you could shut down the northern carbon sink but might strengthen the southern one). This is not “cause of the Younger Dryas” question, it’s a question of what (if anything) happened to the carbon cycle in response to the Younger Dryas, and why.

    In short: this paper doesn’t address causes of the Younger Dryas and doesn’t exclude a THC shutdown as a cause of the Younger Dryas. It just suggests that a THC shutdown, if it happened, didn’t cause a large change in radiocarbon, and that the observed change was due to something else. It also notes the existence of models which suggest, in agreement with their hypothesis, that a THC shutdown would only produce small changes in radiocarbon.

  • Anonymous

    Hi PI. You are right. However, I meant that ubrupt climate events of which there are many, and YD in particular are a problem for an explanation of climate change by CO2, partly because they are always calling on auxiliary hypotheses, whereas I think CRF can operate more quickly, and so has more potential for direct explanation of these events. Actually Shaviv shows CRF operating at time scales from millions of years, to the sunspot cycle.

    You are right also about what Goslar says, but I mention it because the observations are consistent with CRF, that is the 14C levels are and probably not consistent with thermohaline shutdown. Sort of putting a piece of the puzzle in place.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Hi PI. You are right. However, I meant that ubrupt climate events of which there are many, and YD in particular are a problem for an explanation of climate change by CO2, partly because they are always calling on auxiliary hypotheses, whereas I think CRF can operate more quickly, and so has more potential for direct explanation of these events. Actually Shaviv shows CRF operating at time scales from millions of years, to the sunspot cycle.

    You are right also about what Goslar says, but I mention it because the observations are consistent with CRF, that is the 14C levels are and probably not consistent with thermohaline shutdown. Sort of putting a piece of the puzzle in place.

  • PI

    I’m not aware of CO2 being used to explain past abrupt climate events such as the YD or Dansgaard-Oeschger events, so I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to.

    I disagree that Goslar shows 14C levels are inconsistent with thermohaline shutdown. As I mentioned, they explicitly cite GCM models of THC shutdown which are consistent with their hypothesis. (Namely, the models predict shutdown-induced 14C changes which are very small.) As for CRF, they show that changes in 14C are consistent with a CRF cause, but their paper is silent on causes of temperature change.

  • PI

    I’m not aware of CO2 being used to explain past abrupt climate events such as the YD or Dansgaard-Oeschger events, so I’m not sure what exactly you’re referring to.

    I disagree that Goslar shows 14C levels are inconsistent with thermohaline shutdown. As I mentioned, they explicitly cite GCM models of THC shutdown which are consistent with their hypothesis. (Namely, the models predict shutdown-induced 14C changes which are very small.) As for CRF, they show that changes in 14C are consistent with a CRF cause, but their paper is silent on causes of temperature change.

  • Anonymous

    Hi PI, Perhaps thats because GHG’s don’t work well as a proximal explanation. The YD event occuring as a sudden burst of meltwater in an overall GHG-caused warming, could be classed as a GHG distal cause, with an auxillary proximal cause (the meltwater). OTOH cosmic rays as an hypothesis explain both the transition from the glacial maximum, due to decrease in sources of CRF outside of the solar system, and then a transitory increase in CRF of solar origin say. Both are proximal causes. Whatever happened, and I am just speculating, I would say that CO2 has been implicated in sudden climate change though as a distal cause.

    GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work. IMHO CO2 has been implied as a distal cause for just about everything.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Hi PI, Perhaps thats because GHG’s don’t work well as a proximal explanation. The YD event occuring as a sudden burst of meltwater in an overall GHG-caused warming, could be classed as a GHG distal cause, with an auxillary proximal cause (the meltwater). OTOH cosmic rays as an hypothesis explain both the transition from the glacial maximum, due to decrease in sources of CRF outside of the solar system, and then a transitory increase in CRF of solar origin say. Both are proximal causes. Whatever happened, and I am just speculating, I would say that CO2 has been implicated in sudden climate change though as a distal cause.

    GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work. IMHO CO2 has been implied as a distal cause for just about everything.

  • Nick Stokes

    GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work.
    David, you’re missing PI’s point here. He’s saying (and I think he’s right) that no-one has pushed any GHG-based explanation of the YD at all. The proximal/distal complexities are all yours.

  • Nick Stokes

    GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work.
    David, you’re missing PI’s point here. He’s saying (and I think he’s right) that no-one has pushed any GHG-based explanation of the YD at all. The proximal/distal complexities are all yours.

  • Anonymous

    Nick: I get what PI is saying, its just not my point whether people have been pushing GHG explanations or not — its not relevant. I am not trying to take a swipe at people, (well not here anyway). The point is the difficulties of explaining ubrupt events with GHG’s, becuase they are by nature distal.

    Its not my complexity, its the complexity is introduced by trying to explain the YD with an event like meltwater, i.e. CO2 feedback caused warming, which caused meltwater which caused the thermohaline shutdown which caused the YD. Vs. CRF increase as evidenced by the 14C trace in sediments, caused the YD — much simpler and more direct.

    It seems to me that CRF has the potential to explain both short and long term climate change events, and so constitutes a potentially more powerful explanatory theory than GHGs, where even the direction of causation is at issue.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Nick: I get what PI is saying, its just not my point whether people have been pushing GHG explanations or not — its not relevant. I am not trying to take a swipe at people, (well not here anyway). The point is the difficulties of explaining ubrupt events with GHG’s, becuase they are by nature distal.

    Its not my complexity, its the complexity is introduced by trying to explain the YD with an event like meltwater, i.e. CO2 feedback caused warming, which caused meltwater which caused the thermohaline shutdown which caused the YD. Vs. CRF increase as evidenced by the 14C trace in sediments, caused the YD — much simpler and more direct.

    It seems to me that CRF has the potential to explain both short and long term climate change events, and so constitutes a potentially more powerful explanatory theory than GHGs, where even the direction of causation is at issue.

  • Alex Harvey

    David, you’re not wrong that CO2 is being adduced as a cause of just about anything.

    Have you all seen this one?

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/355m-yr-old-global-cooling-caused-by-sharp-decline-in-CO2-/articleshow/4200531.cms

  • Alex Harvey

    David, you’re not wrong that CO2 is being adduced as a cause of just about anything.

    Have you all seen this one?

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/355m-yr-old-global-cooling-caused-by-sharp-decline-in-CO2-/articleshow/4200531.cms

  • Anonymous

    Alex, No I hadn’t. And what could cause, ‘poof’, a sudden drop in CO2? That the change in temperature caused CO2 change is more likely. But the CRF hypothesis is readily testable using isotopes in sediments.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Alex, No I hadn’t. And what could cause, ‘poof’, a sudden drop in CO2? That the change in temperature caused CO2 change is more likely. But the CRF hypothesis is readily testable using isotopes in sediments.

  • Alex Harvey

    I know, it’s really an appeal to magic, isn’t it. Even the description of the computer models they use, they take on all the characteristics of that crystal ball from Lord of the Rings. Just wait till you read the article. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    I know, it’s really an appeal to magic, isn’t it. Even the description of the computer models they use, they take on all the characteristics of that crystal ball from Lord of the Rings. Just wait till you read the article. :)

  • Rob R

    Hi all,

    Consider this. The orthodox view of atmospheic CO2 concentration during the last deglaciation, which included the Younger Dryas, is that there was a more or less stready increase in concentration interupted by a “flat plateau” for around 1500 yrs at the YD. The standard data cited is from measurements from several of the deep Antarctic ice cores (e.g. Vostok, & Taylor Dome) which have relatively slow ice accumulation rates. The deep Greenland Ice cores (e.g. the GISP2 core) show much larger and more abrupt changes in atmospheric CO2 content within the Younger Dryas, and this is normally explained by post depositional reactions within the ice which supposedly create CO2 in-situ within the ice.

    So standard theory suggests that CO2 was not the cause of climate change during the YD and that the contribution to temperature trends within the YD after this period commenced was minimal.

    Another line of research suggests large rapid CO2 concentrations during the YD. This consists of studies of stomata on sub-fossil leaf surfaces. Several careful studies of close spaced samples across the YD indicate CO2 variability that may mimic the behaviour of CO2 in the GISP2 ice core.

    The sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 content to climate change during the YD is still very much an open question. This also applies to older examples of rapid climate change including DO evets.

  • Rob R

    Hi all,

    Consider this. The orthodox view of atmospheic CO2 concentration during the last deglaciation, which included the Younger Dryas, is that there was a more or less stready increase in concentration interupted by a “flat plateau” for around 1500 yrs at the YD. The standard data cited is from measurements from several of the deep Antarctic ice cores (e.g. Vostok, & Taylor Dome) which have relatively slow ice accumulation rates. The deep Greenland Ice cores (e.g. the GISP2 core) show much larger and more abrupt changes in atmospheric CO2 content within the Younger Dryas, and this is normally explained by post depositional reactions within the ice which supposedly create CO2 in-situ within the ice.

    So standard theory suggests that CO2 was not the cause of climate change during the YD and that the contribution to temperature trends within the YD after this period commenced was minimal.

    Another line of research suggests large rapid CO2 concentrations during the YD. This consists of studies of stomata on sub-fossil leaf surfaces. Several careful studies of close spaced samples across the YD indicate CO2 variability that may mimic the behaviour of CO2 in the GISP2 ice core.

    The sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 content to climate change during the YD is still very much an open question. This also applies to older examples of rapid climate change including DO evets.

  • Anonymous

    Rob, Its great to have some readers with knowledge of the YD. It seems to me that any serious explanation has to explain isotopic changes, as examination of the isotopic products of CRF would quickly disprove it.

    Nowhere in the post does it say that CO2 has been thought to be responsible for the YD.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Rob, Its great to have some readers with knowledge of the YD. It seems to me that any serious explanation has to explain isotopic changes, as examination of the isotopic products of CRF would quickly disprove it.

    Nowhere in the post does it say that CO2 has been thought to be responsible for the YD.

  • PI

    “The YD event occuring as a sudden burst of meltwater in an overall GHG-caused warming, could be classed as a GHG distal cause, with an auxillary proximal cause (the meltwater).”

    Once again, these results say nothing about the cause of the Younger Dryas, and they certainly say nothing about CO2’s role in the earlier deglaciation, which is the only relevant way in which CO2 contributes to the Younger Dryas.

    “OTOH cosmic rays as an hypothesis explain both the transition from the glacial maximum, due to decrease in sources of CRF outside of the solar system, and then a transitory increase in CRF of solar origin say.”

    I disagree on both counts, but that’s neither here nor there. I think you’re wandering away from the Goslar paper, which does not indicate a stronger-than-previously-thought solar contribution to the YD or the YD carbon cycle. The whole point of their paper is that (according to them) the radiocarbon changes are smaller than previously thought, so that they’re small enough to agree with an ordinary solar-only cause. (A solar-only cause was originally considered but discarded because it couldn’t explain the size of the effect. If the effect is smaller than previously thought, then solar is back in play.) Their 10Be data don’t show anomalously different fluctuations at the Younger Dryas.

    “GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work.”

    IMHO, your eagerness to condemn CO2 is verging on disingenuity here. This paper has absolutely nothing to do with whether CO2 contributes to deglaciations, the “distal” way in which CO2 may have influenced the Younger Dryas. Even if this paper ruled out a thermohaline collapse as the cause of the Younger Dryas, which it doesn’t, or if it directly implicated the Sun as a cause of YD cooling, which it doesn’t, that still says nothing about the causes of deglaciations. Conversely, if it was discovered that CO2 doesn’t contribute to deglaciations, that would say nothing about the real cause of the Younger Dryas. Your whole Younger Dryas discussion is just a giant red herring, and GHG theories of climate change do not require the Younger Dryas to “make them work”. The YD does not “add complexity” to the GHG picture: it still needs to be explained regardless of what role GHGs play in the overall glacial-interglacial cycle.

  • PI

    “The YD event occuring as a sudden burst of meltwater in an overall GHG-caused warming, could be classed as a GHG distal cause, with an auxillary proximal cause (the meltwater).”

    Once again, these results say nothing about the cause of the Younger Dryas, and they certainly say nothing about CO2’s role in the earlier deglaciation, which is the only relevant way in which CO2 contributes to the Younger Dryas.

    “OTOH cosmic rays as an hypothesis explain both the transition from the glacial maximum, due to decrease in sources of CRF outside of the solar system, and then a transitory increase in CRF of solar origin say.”

    I disagree on both counts, but that’s neither here nor there. I think you’re wandering away from the Goslar paper, which does not indicate a stronger-than-previously-thought solar contribution to the YD or the YD carbon cycle. The whole point of their paper is that (according to them) the radiocarbon changes are smaller than previously thought, so that they’re small enough to agree with an ordinary solar-only cause. (A solar-only cause was originally considered but discarded because it couldn’t explain the size of the effect. If the effect is smaller than previously thought, then solar is back in play.) Their 10Be data don’t show anomalously different fluctuations at the Younger Dryas.

    “GHG’s requires more proximal auxillary hypothesis to make the explanation work. That seems to be the history of the GHG theories of climate change, requiring ever more complex theories to make them work.”

    IMHO, your eagerness to condemn CO2 is verging on disingenuity here. This paper has absolutely nothing to do with whether CO2 contributes to deglaciations, the “distal” way in which CO2 may have influenced the Younger Dryas. Even if this paper ruled out a thermohaline collapse as the cause of the Younger Dryas, which it doesn’t, or if it directly implicated the Sun as a cause of YD cooling, which it doesn’t, that still says nothing about the causes of deglaciations. Conversely, if it was discovered that CO2 doesn’t contribute to deglaciations, that would say nothing about the real cause of the Younger Dryas. Your whole Younger Dryas discussion is just a giant red herring, and GHG theories of climate change do not require the Younger Dryas to “make them work”. The YD does not “add complexity” to the GHG picture: it still needs to be explained regardless of what role GHGs play in the overall glacial-interglacial cycle.

  • PI

    Rob,

    Lest the discussion become even more muddled, it should be noted that even those who argue for larger CO2 changes have not claimed that those changes are the cause of the abrupt YD cooling event. e.g., Mcelwain et al. in their stomatal reconstruction still argue for the usual CO2 feedback picture (something else initiates the climate change and CO2 amplifies it over time).

    David is correct in noting that natural carbon cycle changes are generally too gradual to cause these kinds of abrupt climate events: there is no internal “trigger” for the carbon cycle to suddenly go crazy like that, except in potentially in response to an abrupt climate change. I just don’t understand why he seems to think that a solar vs. THC cause of the YD says anything meaningful about CO2’s influence on climate.

  • PI

    Rob,

    Lest the discussion become even more muddled, it should be noted that even those who argue for larger CO2 changes have not claimed that those changes are the cause of the abrupt YD cooling event. e.g., Mcelwain et al. in their stomatal reconstruction still argue for the usual CO2 feedback picture (something else initiates the climate change and CO2 amplifies it over time).

    David is correct in noting that natural carbon cycle changes are generally too gradual to cause these kinds of abrupt climate events: there is no internal “trigger” for the carbon cycle to suddenly go crazy like that, except in potentially in response to an abrupt climate change. I just don’t understand why he seems to think that a solar vs. THC cause of the YD says anything meaningful about CO2’s influence on climate.

  • Anonymous

    PI: “I just don’t understand why he seems to think that a solar vs. THC cause of the YD says anything meaningful about CO2’s influence on climate.”

    I don’t. The only reference to CO2 is to the ‘difficulties’ that arise, from having to find additional explanations for abrupt change (Comets, THC). This is another way of saying “that natural carbon cycle changes are generally too gradual to cause these kinds of abrupt climate events”, a point you agree with.

    “I think you’re wandering away from the Goslar paper “. So? He mentions cosmic rays, solar magnetic field and solar activity. Thats just putting 1+1 together. He makes observations completely consistent with CRF as a cause.

    “The whole point of their paper is that (according to them) the radiocarbon changes are smaller than previously thought, so that they’re small enough to agree with an ordinary solar-only cause. (A solar-only cause was originally considered but discarded because it couldn’t explain the size of the effect.”

    But if solar effect is amplified, then it doesn’t need to be discarded.

    The title of the post is whether CRF caused YD. CO2 is mentioned once, and not in the context you raise. Your comments are stuffed full of strawman arguments. I would have thought it more productive to address the 14C record, as this is the important evidence in this case.

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    PI: “I just don’t understand why he seems to think that a solar vs. THC cause of the YD says anything meaningful about CO2’s influence on climate.”

    I don’t. The only reference to CO2 is to the ‘difficulties’ that arise, from having to find additional explanations for abrupt change (Comets, THC). This is another way of saying “that natural carbon cycle changes are generally too gradual to cause these kinds of abrupt climate events”, a point you agree with.

    “I think you’re wandering away from the Goslar paper “. So? He mentions cosmic rays, solar magnetic field and solar activity. Thats just putting 1+1 together. He makes observations completely consistent with CRF as a cause.

    “The whole point of their paper is that (according to them) the radiocarbon changes are smaller than previously thought, so that they’re small enough to agree with an ordinary solar-only cause. (A solar-only cause was originally considered but discarded because it couldn’t explain the size of the effect.”

    But if solar effect is amplified, then it doesn’t need to be discarded.

    The title of the post is whether CRF caused YD. CO2 is mentioned once, and not in the context you raise. Your comments are stuffed full of strawman arguments. I would have thought it more productive to address the 14C record, as this is the important evidence in this case.

  • Rob R

    My previous post may have been slightly off topic. One thing that I find to be rather curious is that the YD was a majot event of hemispheric scale (Northern Hemisphere), though rather muted below the equator. Massive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere occured within decades with apparently little assistance from changes in atmospheric CO2 content. This is displayed quite starkly in oxygen isotope ratios from Greenland ice cores and a whole range of proxy indicators from continental and oceanic sources. Sudden climate shifts clearly regularly outpace the influence of atmospheric CO2, both cooling events and warming events.

    Personally I suspect that planetary albedo constitutes a much stronger and faster feedback than CO2 (and its potential effect on water vapour). This extends to clouds and ice/snow. Average sea-ice and land-snow cover is apt to change rather quickly in response to cooling bought on by changes in cloud cover. So there may be extensive links into the energy balance that extend well beyond modest direct impacts of changes in cosmic ray flux on cloud cover.

    I have no firmly held opinion on the ultimate cause of the YD other than that atmospheric CO2 is not likely to be the culpret. CRF is a candidate but I suspect that there was a SIGNIFICANT change in North Atlantic deep water formation possibly influenced by freshening of surface waters. Did one abrupt event pre-condition circumstances such that there was a heightened sensitivity to other agents? Does there have to be a single cause?

  • Rob R

    My previous post may have been slightly off topic. One thing that I find to be rather curious is that the YD was a majot event of hemispheric scale (Northern Hemisphere), though rather muted below the equator. Massive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere occured within decades with apparently little assistance from changes in atmospheric CO2 content. This is displayed quite starkly in oxygen isotope ratios from Greenland ice cores and a whole range of proxy indicators from continental and oceanic sources. Sudden climate shifts clearly regularly outpace the influence of atmospheric CO2, both cooling events and warming events.

    Personally I suspect that planetary albedo constitutes a much stronger and faster feedback than CO2 (and its potential effect on water vapour). This extends to clouds and ice/snow. Average sea-ice and land-snow cover is apt to change rather quickly in response to cooling bought on by changes in cloud cover. So there may be extensive links into the energy balance that extend well beyond modest direct impacts of changes in cosmic ray flux on cloud cover.

    I have no firmly held opinion on the ultimate cause of the YD other than that atmospheric CO2 is not likely to be the culpret. CRF is a candidate but I suspect that there was a SIGNIFICANT change in North Atlantic deep water formation possibly influenced by freshening of surface waters. Did one abrupt event pre-condition circumstances such that there was a heightened sensitivity to other agents? Does there have to be a single cause?

  • Anonymous

    Rob,
    “Does there have to be a single cause?” No but I think the methodological issues of the 14C record are more germane and OT for this blog. Eg this 2008 paper, gives an inking of a 14C trace that was problem needing to be solved.

    Tree rings and ice cores reveal 14C calibration uncertainties during the Younger Dryas
    R. Muscheler1, B. Kromer2, S. Björck1, A. Svensson3, M. Friedrich2,4, K. F. Kaiser5,6 & J. Southon7

    ——————————————————————————–

    AbstractThe Younger Dryas interval during the Last Glacial Termination was an abrupt return to glacial-like conditions punctuating the transition to a warmer, interglacial climate. Despite recent advances in the layer counting of ice-core records of the termination, the timing and length of the Younger Dryas remain controversial. Also, a steep rise in the concentration of atmospheric radiocarbon at the onset of the interval, recorded primarily in the Cariaco Basin, has been difficult to reconcile with simulations of the Younger Dryas carbon cycle. Here we discuss a radiocarbon chronology from a tree-ring record covering the Late Glacial period that has not been absolutely dated. We correlate the chronology to ice-core timescales using the common cosmic production signal in tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be concentrations. The results of this correlation suggest that the Cariaco record may be biased by changes in the concentration of radiocarbon in the upper ocean during the early phase of the Younger Dryas climate reversal in the Cariaco basin. This bias in the marine record may also affect the accuracy of a widely used radiocarbon calibration curve over this interval. Our tree-ring-based radiocarbon record is easily reconciled with simulated production rates and carbon-cycle changes associated with reduced ocean ventilation during the Younger Dryas.

  • http://landshape.org/enm David Stockwell

    Rob,
    “Does there have to be a single cause?” No but I think the methodological issues of the 14C record are more germane and OT for this blog. Eg this 2008 paper, gives an inking of a 14C trace that was problem needing to be solved.

    Tree rings and ice cores reveal 14C calibration uncertainties during the Younger Dryas
    R. Muscheler1, B. Kromer2, S. Björck1, A. Svensson3, M. Friedrich2,4, K. F. Kaiser5,6 & J. Southon7

    ——————————————————————————–

    AbstractThe Younger Dryas interval during the Last Glacial Termination was an abrupt return to glacial-like conditions punctuating the transition to a warmer, interglacial climate. Despite recent advances in the layer counting of ice-core records of the termination, the timing and length of the Younger Dryas remain controversial. Also, a steep rise in the concentration of atmospheric radiocarbon at the onset of the interval, recorded primarily in the Cariaco Basin, has been difficult to reconcile with simulations of the Younger Dryas carbon cycle. Here we discuss a radiocarbon chronology from a tree-ring record covering the Late Glacial period that has not been absolutely dated. We correlate the chronology to ice-core timescales using the common cosmic production signal in tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be concentrations. The results of this correlation suggest that the Cariaco record may be biased by changes in the concentration of radiocarbon in the upper ocean during the early phase of the Younger Dryas climate reversal in the Cariaco basin. This bias in the marine record may also affect the accuracy of a widely used radiocarbon calibration curve over this interval. Our tree-ring-based radiocarbon record is easily reconciled with simulated production rates and carbon-cycle changes associated with reduced ocean ventilation during the Younger Dryas.

  • cohenite

    If cosmic rays are implicated in cooling via the accelerated formation of clouds then the converse may be illustrative; Kump and Pollard have looked at the absence of clouds as the cause of super-greenhouse conditions;

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ps-aoc040708.php

    In any event the role of CO2 in both heating and cooling is marginal if extant at all.

  • cohenite

    If cosmic rays are implicated in cooling via the accelerated formation of clouds then the converse may be illustrative; Kump and Pollard have looked at the absence of clouds as the cause of super-greenhouse conditions;

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ps-aoc040708.php

    In any event the role of CO2 in both heating and cooling is marginal if extant at all.

  • Anonymous

    Its been a long few years on this blog, but it looks like its finally the end of the road for AGW. Cosmic rays — who’da thought it?

  • http://landshape.org/enm admin

    Its been a long few years on this blog, but it looks like its finally the end of the road for AGW. Cosmic rays — who’da thought it?

  • cohenite

    I think the AGW vampire has some black vitality left yet.

    It may interest you to know that The Climate Sceptics are negotiating with Miklos Zagoni to give some public lectures after he has met with the NZ government. As the resident expert on Miskolczi would you be interested in liasing with Miklos when he comes to Australia?

  • cohenite

    I think the AGW vampire has some black vitality left yet.

    It may interest you to know that The Climate Sceptics are negotiating with Miklos Zagoni to give some public lectures after he has met with the NZ government. As the resident expert on Miskolczi would you be interested in liasing with Miklos when he comes to Australia?

  • Alex Harvey

    David #21,

    That’s interesting.

    I am still relatively new to this climate change debate, having only become skeptical in late 2006 when my team leader, a retired geophysicist, suddenly blurted out one evening that ‘global warming is one great load of @$&!” At that point, I really knew nothing about climate science.

    Yet I am also getting the sense that the AGW theory is gasping its last breath, although I can’t really tell if that’s because I’ve only just learnt enough now to have an informed understanding of my own, or if it’s because everyone else is at the same time realising the same as I am.

    You really think it’s over for AGW now? How long do you think it’ll be before other high profile scientists start ‘coming out’?

  • Alex Harvey

    David #21,

    That’s interesting.

    I am still relatively new to this climate change debate, having only become skeptical in late 2006 when my team leader, a retired geophysicist, suddenly blurted out one evening that ‘global warming is one great load of @$&!” At that point, I really knew nothing about climate science.

    Yet I am also getting the sense that the AGW theory is gasping its last breath, although I can’t really tell if that’s because I’ve only just learnt enough now to have an informed understanding of my own, or if it’s because everyone else is at the same time realising the same as I am.

    You really think it’s over for AGW now? How long do you think it’ll be before other high profile scientists start ‘coming out’?

  • jae

    “Its been a long few years on this blog, but it looks like its finally the end of the road for AGW. Cosmic rays — who’da thought it?”

    Well, the politicians and the folks positioned to make money on AGW (GE and Al Gore, for example) are not going to give up on AGW. It is too lucrative for them. I’m very concerned that they will be able to get enough “scientists” to agree with them to keep the scam going.

  • jae

    “Its been a long few years on this blog, but it looks like its finally the end of the road for AGW. Cosmic rays — who’da thought it?”

    Well, the politicians and the folks positioned to make money on AGW (GE and Al Gore, for example) are not going to give up on AGW. It is too lucrative for them. I’m very concerned that they will be able to get enough “scientists” to agree with them to keep the scam going.

  • Alex Harvey

    Actually, I predict that the scientists will just quietly & gradually revise downwards their estimates for sensitivity to 2xCO2 and then the alarmists will gradually shift their emphasis over to ‘ocean acidification’ once it becomes clear that AGW was a false alarm.

    http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Caldeira_Science_Anthropogenic%20Carbon%20and%20ocean%20pH.pdf

    So I’ll bet it’s not over yet.

  • Alex Harvey

    Actually, I predict that the scientists will just quietly & gradually revise downwards their estimates for sensitivity to 2xCO2 and then the alarmists will gradually shift their emphasis over to ‘ocean acidification’ once it becomes clear that AGW was a false alarm.

    http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Caldeira_Science_Anthropogenic%20Carbon%20and%20ocean%20pH.pdf

    So I’ll bet it’s not over yet.

  • Anonymous

    “You really think it’s over for AGW now?”

    How can it not be? Barring an audit of Shaviv’s results turns up gross errors. You have seen the numbers. CRF is more important to recent warming than AGW in the ration 5:1. Harrison and Stephenson show neutron flux variability affects cloudiness by 20%. CRF is a 4 sigma signal, if you attribute the recent ocean flux results to CRF, its over a 5 sigma signal. Climate science should be shocked and awed.

  • http://landshape.org davids

    “You really think it’s over for AGW now?”

    How can it not be? Barring an audit of Shaviv’s results turns up gross errors. You have seen the numbers. CRF is more important to recent warming than AGW in the ration 5:1. Harrison and Stephenson show neutron flux variability affects cloudiness by 20%. CRF is a 4 sigma signal, if you attribute the recent ocean flux results to CRF, its over a 5 sigma signal. Climate science should be shocked and awed.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #25

    “Actually, I predict that the scientists will just quietly & gradually revise downwards their estimates for sensitivity to 2xCO2 and then the alarmists will gradually shift their emphasis over to ‘ocean acidification’ once it becomes clear that AGW was a false alarm.”

    I tend to agree, however I note that even the ‘ocean acidification’ side bandwagon to the main AGW bandwagon is going to have a lot of REAL explaining to do.

    The two forms of biogenic calcium carbonate found in the ocean, aragonite e.g. corals and forams (calcareous plankton) and calcite e.g. pteropods have well-defined and easily (chemothermodynamic) model-predicted Saturation Indices (SIs) under a variety of partial pressures (volumetric concentration) of CO2 in air and air/water equilibrating ocean layer depth scenarios.

    SI = log (Ion Activity Product)/log (Mineral Solubility Product)

    If SI>0.00 the mineral is stable (insoluble). If SI ~0.00 the mineral is metastable (on the brink of dissolving). If SI <0.00 the mineral is dissolved (soluble).

    It is quite easy to show that it would require pCO2 in air to rise to ~2500 ppmv before the SI of calcite = 0.00. For aragonite it is about 1800 ppmv. It will be many centuries if ever that such atmospheric CO2 concentrations are attained.

    These simple equilibrium thermodynamic constraints explain why most marine aragonite- and calcite-forming organisms have evolved over many 100s of millions of years during which time pCO2 has been as high as 2500 ppmv or more DURING WHICH TIME corals, forams etc have NOT been rendered extinct.

    Technically it is not quite as simplistic as this but suffice to say in my view the risks of ocean acidification are grossly overblown in line with many other aspects of the effect of increased atmospheric CO2. The key issue is just what layer of seawater equilibrates with the atmosphere and how rapid is the mixing of CO2 to greater depth?

    I get really annoyed when I see on the TV (the latest instance for Australia was only a few days ago) a certain ‘scientist’ showing comparative SEM pictures of the shells of forams etc suggesting they have been getting thinner since say the 1930s etc., and baldly claiming this is unequivocal evidence for ‘ocean acidification’.

    It is no such thing.

    Fact is, if you look at sediment cores from various locations around the world with fossil forams in them going back many 100s of 1000s of years you will inevitably find periods and regions when shells were thinner and others when they were thicker.

    There is an enormous body of established literature evidence to show that a host of environmental factors unrelated to atmospheric CO2 levels affects the thicknesses of shells.

    Seawater dissolved organic carbon (DOC) levels, water temperature effects, regional exogeneous inputs of sulfate, phosphate strontium and barium, heavy metals etc from volcanic fallout, marine viruses (yes they do exist) etc….the list is very long.

    Once again, even in the case of ‘ocean acidification’ we have a cadre of AGW-driven ‘proselytizer-scientists’ emerging for whom spoken or written untruths, big or small, are permissible in order to fool the vast masses out there and once having been heard or read and drilled into an Internet-driven folklore, are hard to combat.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #25

    “Actually, I predict that the scientists will just quietly & gradually revise downwards their estimates for sensitivity to 2xCO2 and then the alarmists will gradually shift their emphasis over to ‘ocean acidification’ once it becomes clear that AGW was a false alarm.”

    I tend to agree, however I note that even the ‘ocean acidification’ side bandwagon to the main AGW bandwagon is going to have a lot of REAL explaining to do.

    The two forms of biogenic calcium carbonate found in the ocean, aragonite e.g. corals and forams (calcareous plankton) and calcite e.g. pteropods have well-defined and easily (chemothermodynamic) model-predicted Saturation Indices (SIs) under a variety of partial pressures (volumetric concentration) of CO2 in air and air/water equilibrating ocean layer depth scenarios.

    SI = log (Ion Activity Product)/log (Mineral Solubility Product)

    If SI>0.00 the mineral is stable (insoluble). If SI ~0.00 the mineral is metastable (on the brink of dissolving). If SI <0.00 the mineral is dissolved (soluble).

    It is quite easy to show that it would require pCO2 in air to rise to ~2500 ppmv before the SI of calcite = 0.00. For aragonite it is about 1800 ppmv. It will be many centuries if ever that such atmospheric CO2 concentrations are attained.

    These simple equilibrium thermodynamic constraints explain why most marine aragonite- and calcite-forming organisms have evolved over many 100s of millions of years during which time pCO2 has been as high as 2500 ppmv or more DURING WHICH TIME corals, forams etc have NOT been rendered extinct.

    Technically it is not quite as simplistic as this but suffice to say in my view the risks of ocean acidification are grossly overblown in line with many other aspects of the effect of increased atmospheric CO2. The key issue is just what layer of seawater equilibrates with the atmosphere and how rapid is the mixing of CO2 to greater depth?

    I get really annoyed when I see on the TV (the latest instance for Australia was only a few days ago) a certain ‘scientist’ showing comparative SEM pictures of the shells of forams etc suggesting they have been getting thinner since say the 1930s etc., and baldly claiming this is unequivocal evidence for ‘ocean acidification’.

    It is no such thing.

    Fact is, if you look at sediment cores from various locations around the world with fossil forams in them going back many 100s of 1000s of years you will inevitably find periods and regions when shells were thinner and others when they were thicker.

    There is an enormous body of established literature evidence to show that a host of environmental factors unrelated to atmospheric CO2 levels affects the thicknesses of shells.

    Seawater dissolved organic carbon (DOC) levels, water temperature effects, regional exogeneous inputs of sulfate, phosphate strontium and barium, heavy metals etc from volcanic fallout, marine viruses (yes they do exist) etc….the list is very long.

    Once again, even in the case of ‘ocean acidification’ we have a cadre of AGW-driven ‘proselytizer-scientists’ emerging for whom spoken or written untruths, big or small, are permissible in order to fool the vast masses out there and once having been heard or read and drilled into an Internet-driven folklore, are hard to combat.

  • Anonymous

    What do you think of the opinon of Lord Monckton http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/podcasts/NewYork09/MoncktonChristopher.mp3?

    Basically, world leaders have been convinced that AGW is a serious problem by the presentation of evidence. If AGW is not a serious problem, then the evidence has been fabricated, or at best deliberately exaggerated. This constitutes scientific fraud.

    As we say in Australia, they want to have 2 bob each way. Given the way sceptics have been pilloried, I don’t feel inclined to let them slide.

  • http://landshape.org davids

    What do you think of the opinon of Lord Monckton http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/podcasts/NewYork09/MoncktonChristopher.mp3?

    Basically, world leaders have been convinced that AGW is a serious problem by the presentation of evidence. If AGW is not a serious problem, then the evidence has been fabricated, or at best deliberately exaggerated. This constitutes scientific fraud.

    As we say in Australia, they want to have 2 bob each way. Given the way sceptics have been pilloried, I don’t feel inclined to let them slide.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Personally, I think that, historically speaking, we are possibly approaching a ‘big crunch’ when the developed world might well have to have to ask itself at a broad social level whether Science (i.e. in the western historic and global sense) deserves to be taken to task for creating, establishing and perpetuating The Great AGW Scare.

    If and only if that occurs (and please note there are literally tens of thousands of scientists who will be prepared to devote the remainders of their miserable careers feverishly dissembling the issue away) , then will the world ask itself how and why?

    This issue and it’s potential far-reaching social and historical consequences intrigues me greatly and I have given it much thought. Here is my take on it.

    The Greeks quite rightly identified hubris as the greatest sin. This is what Wikipedia has to say about hubris:

    Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) or hybris (/’haɪbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις), mythology is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist’s downfall.

    Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it was not only proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent “outrageous treatment” in general.

    Sound familiar?

    It is my view that, after about about half a millenium of rapid development (in competition with Religion) even Science itself finally succumbed to that most common, and most deadly of human sins: Hubris.

    Most common you may ask? Oh yes, e.g. I well remember John Howard on election night 1996 declaring ‘an end to hubris in Australian national politics’, ironically just as he himself ushered in an 11 year orgy by him and his associates of unbridled hubris in our national politics!

    But I digress. The really hard question is – if Science does eventually ‘go to court’ accused of the crime of Hubris on an hitherto un-imaginable mega-scale, what happens next?

    A new Dark Age of Unreason?

    Should we perhaps create an international crime of Denying the Hubris?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Personally, I think that, historically speaking, we are possibly approaching a ‘big crunch’ when the developed world might well have to have to ask itself at a broad social level whether Science (i.e. in the western historic and global sense) deserves to be taken to task for creating, establishing and perpetuating The Great AGW Scare.

    If and only if that occurs (and please note there are literally tens of thousands of scientists who will be prepared to devote the remainders of their miserable careers feverishly dissembling the issue away) , then will the world ask itself how and why?

    This issue and it’s potential far-reaching social and historical consequences intrigues me greatly and I have given it much thought. Here is my take on it.

    The Greeks quite rightly identified hubris as the greatest sin. This is what Wikipedia has to say about hubris:

    Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) or hybris (/’haɪbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις), mythology is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist’s downfall.

    Hubris, though not specifically defined, was a legal term and was considered a crime in classical Athens. It was also considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. That was so because it was not only proof of excessive pride, but also resulted in violent acts by or to those involved. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to mutilation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, or irreverent “outrageous treatment” in general.

    Sound familiar?

    It is my view that, after about about half a millenium of rapid development (in competition with Religion) even Science itself finally succumbed to that most common, and most deadly of human sins: Hubris.

    Most common you may ask? Oh yes, e.g. I well remember John Howard on election night 1996 declaring ‘an end to hubris in Australian national politics’, ironically just as he himself ushered in an 11 year orgy by him and his associates of unbridled hubris in our national politics!

    But I digress. The really hard question is – if Science does eventually ‘go to court’ accused of the crime of Hubris on an hitherto un-imaginable mega-scale, what happens next?

    A new Dark Age of Unreason?

    Should we perhaps create an international crime of Denying the Hubris?

  • Anonymous

    Hi Steve: I agree it is an issue to be taken seriously. The collateral damage to Science resulting from AGW concerns me far more than AGW itself. As a quite sensible person I knew said, the net effect of any scandal is reduction in funding across science. So I do not wish the perception of AGW as a scam upon science, and I haven’t been able to do anything about the headlong rush in that direction.

    I am somewhat surprised at the lack of comments on the posts on Shaviv’s work. It has been around awhile in the work of Piers Corbin, and Leif Svalgaard. But to the extent that the theme of this blog is to trust the numbers, and not wait for the herd to come around, he seems to have provided the most convincing numerical proof that AGW really is a non-event.

  • http://landshape.org davids

    Hi Steve: I agree it is an issue to be taken seriously. The collateral damage to Science resulting from AGW concerns me far more than AGW itself. As a quite sensible person I knew said, the net effect of any scandal is reduction in funding across science. So I do not wish the perception of AGW as a scam upon science, and I haven’t been able to do anything about the headlong rush in that direction.

    I am somewhat surprised at the lack of comments on the posts on Shaviv’s work. It has been around awhile in the work of Piers Corbin, and Leif Svalgaard. But to the extent that the theme of this blog is to trust the numbers, and not wait for the herd to come around, he seems to have provided the most convincing numerical proof that AGW really is a non-event.

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve/David,

    In case you haven’t seen it already, Lindzen touches on this in:

    Lindzen, RS 2009: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?, arXiv:0809.3762.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    Yes, what will become of science?

    I have been looking at photographs of climate alarmists.

    It’s very interesting. The number of climate alarmists who LOOK, dress like, wear their hair like, green activists is … alarming. I can’t help thinking that science really has been taken over by green activists, that they’re really just pretending to be scientists in order to save the world. If you think about it, as teenagers they must have thought, ‘well, what will I do for a job?’ You can’t make money by going out into the street and protesting, so here they are a number of years later, dressed up as scientists.

    It’s really quite scary.

    Here’s Ken Caldeira, who models a scenario of 10,000ppm Co2, to show how the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the oceans (the Science article I posted a link to above).

    http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/

    Mark Pagani (linked to both Jim Hansen & Ken Caldeira via co-author network):

    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/

    Joan Kleypas

    http://leopoldleadership.org/content/fellows/search-detail.jsp?id=184

    These photos all scream out to me “we’re scientists and we’re saving the world!”

    Could just be me of course. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve/David,

    In case you haven’t seen it already, Lindzen touches on this in:

    Lindzen, RS 2009: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?, arXiv:0809.3762.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    Yes, what will become of science?

    I have been looking at photographs of climate alarmists.

    It’s very interesting. The number of climate alarmists who LOOK, dress like, wear their hair like, green activists is … alarming. I can’t help thinking that science really has been taken over by green activists, that they’re really just pretending to be scientists in order to save the world. If you think about it, as teenagers they must have thought, ‘well, what will I do for a job?’ You can’t make money by going out into the street and protesting, so here they are a number of years later, dressed up as scientists.

    It’s really quite scary.

    Here’s Ken Caldeira, who models a scenario of 10,000ppm Co2, to show how the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the oceans (the Science article I posted a link to above).

    http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/

    Mark Pagani (linked to both Jim Hansen & Ken Caldeira via co-author network):

    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364/

    Joan Kleypas

    http://leopoldleadership.org/content/fellows/search-detail.jsp?id=184

    These photos all scream out to me “we’re scientists and we’re saving the world!”

    Could just be me of course. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    David, by the way it could be a great idea to do a post or series of posts presenting the overall theory of GCRs per Shaviv for the layperson, in the same way you did for Miskolczi, and how he gets to his conclusion that 80% (?) of the recent warming MUST have been caused by GCRs. I’m sure it would draw a lot of debate.

  • Alex Harvey

    David, by the way it could be a great idea to do a post or series of posts presenting the overall theory of GCRs per Shaviv for the layperson, in the same way you did for Miskolczi, and how he gets to his conclusion that 80% (?) of the recent warming MUST have been caused by GCRs. I’m sure it would draw a lot of debate.

  • Anonymous

    Thank sAlex: Perhaps that is what is needed. Its would be a lot simpler than Miskolczi’s theory. Cheers

  • http://landshape.org davids

    Thank sAlex: Perhaps that is what is needed. Its would be a lot simpler than Miskolczi’s theory. Cheers

  • Nick Stokes

    It is quite easy to show that it would require pCO2 in air to rise to ~2500 ppmv before the SI of calcite = 0.00. For aragonite it is about 1800 ppmv.

    Steve, I’d be very interested to see that shown. If the equilibrium is so far in favor of solid CaCO3, doesn’t that mean the ocean is highly supersaturated (with CaCO3)?

  • Nick Stokes

    It is quite easy to show that it would require pCO2 in air to rise to ~2500 ppmv before the SI of calcite = 0.00. For aragonite it is about 1800 ppmv.

    Steve, I’d be very interested to see that shown. If the equilibrium is so far in favor of solid CaCO3, doesn’t that mean the ocean is highly supersaturated (with CaCO3)?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #34

    “Steve, I’d be very interested to see that shown. If the equilibrium is so far in favor of solid CaCO3, doesn’t that mean the ocean is highly supersaturated (with CaCO3)?”

    Yes, Nick you are correct.

    FYI, in ‘normal seawater’ of pH 8.22, using the standard seawater composition (Nordstrom et al. 1979) and e.g. the critically reviewed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory thermodynamic database coupled to the USGS model PHREEQC, the SI of calcite is 0.73 and of aragonite 0.58.

    That means that calcite is 5.37 times oversaturated and aragonite 3.80 times oversaturated in normal seawater (noting SI is a log scale as you discerned).

    If we reduced the pH to (say) 8.00 then the SI of calcite falls to 0.54 and that of aragonite 0.39.

    If you would like me to calculate for you the exact partial pressures of CO2 in equilibrium with a mass of seawater which produce SIs for calcite or aragonite of 0.00 I would need about another 15 minutes.

    FYI this is my field – I have a PhD in solid-liquid interfacial geochemistry and have spent over two decades doing both geochemical and process hydrometallurgical modeling (both equilibrium and kinetically controlled). I am able to model this stuff every whichaway with the tools at my disposal.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #34

    “Steve, I’d be very interested to see that shown. If the equilibrium is so far in favor of solid CaCO3, doesn’t that mean the ocean is highly supersaturated (with CaCO3)?”

    Yes, Nick you are correct.

    FYI, in ‘normal seawater’ of pH 8.22, using the standard seawater composition (Nordstrom et al. 1979) and e.g. the critically reviewed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory thermodynamic database coupled to the USGS model PHREEQC, the SI of calcite is 0.73 and of aragonite 0.58.

    That means that calcite is 5.37 times oversaturated and aragonite 3.80 times oversaturated in normal seawater (noting SI is a log scale as you discerned).

    If we reduced the pH to (say) 8.00 then the SI of calcite falls to 0.54 and that of aragonite 0.39.

    If you would like me to calculate for you the exact partial pressures of CO2 in equilibrium with a mass of seawater which produce SIs for calcite or aragonite of 0.00 I would need about another 15 minutes.

    FYI this is my field – I have a PhD in solid-liquid interfacial geochemistry and have spent over two decades doing both geochemical and process hydrometallurgical modeling (both equilibrium and kinetically controlled). I am able to model this stuff every whichaway with the tools at my disposal.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00

    (2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00)

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00

    (2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00)

  • Nick Stokes

    But Steve, while CO2 reduces the pH, that’s an incidental effect. Primarily there is an equilibrium between CO2 and HCO3, and then between HCO3 and CO3 and then between CO3 and Ca (CaCO3) (superfix signs omitted). And extra CO2 pushes the first and has a knock-on effect, which is different to just a pH change. Yes, H+ enters into the equations, but adding CO2 is different to adding, say, HCl.

    My general understanding of these things is that if you do combine them and have CaCO3 and CO2, each with an indefinite supply (limestone/coral and air), then the SI has to be about zero. Otherwise something is supersaturated.

    You’re saying that indeed CacO3 is highly supersaturated in the ocean. Is this the consensus view? It’s fairly standard chemistry.

  • Nick Stokes

    But Steve, while CO2 reduces the pH, that’s an incidental effect. Primarily there is an equilibrium between CO2 and HCO3, and then between HCO3 and CO3 and then between CO3 and Ca (CaCO3) (superfix signs omitted). And extra CO2 pushes the first and has a knock-on effect, which is different to just a pH change. Yes, H+ enters into the equations, but adding CO2 is different to adding, say, HCl.

    My general understanding of these things is that if you do combine them and have CaCO3 and CO2, each with an indefinite supply (limestone/coral and air), then the SI has to be about zero. Otherwise something is supersaturated.

    You’re saying that indeed CacO3 is highly supersaturated in the ocean. Is this the consensus view? It’s fairly standard chemistry.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I was NOT adding HCl. Straw man alert.

    I was adding CO2 as a defined partial pressure in an infinite mixed gas phase (e.g. the atmoshere) in thermodynamic equilibrium with a shallow layer of seawater such as would contain corals, forams etc.

    FYI, CaCO3- secreting organisms EXPLOIT the fact (biogeochemically) that calcite and aragonite are thermodynamically supersaturated in seawater. That is their raison d’etre! By definition they would not exist if it were note so.

    FYI, this is (trivially) common knowledge for about the last, oh, 200 years!

    Do you really want to throw your elementary and misunderstood (by you) high school chemistry back at me, Nick? I thought you were way smarter than that.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    I was NOT adding HCl. Straw man alert.

    I was adding CO2 as a defined partial pressure in an infinite mixed gas phase (e.g. the atmoshere) in thermodynamic equilibrium with a shallow layer of seawater such as would contain corals, forams etc.

    FYI, CaCO3- secreting organisms EXPLOIT the fact (biogeochemically) that calcite and aragonite are thermodynamically supersaturated in seawater. That is their raison d’etre! By definition they would not exist if it were note so.

    FYI, this is (trivially) common knowledge for about the last, oh, 200 years!

    Do you really want to throw your elementary and misunderstood (by you) high school chemistry back at me, Nick? I thought you were way smarter than that.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43

    (2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve, I’m not in disputatious mode – I’m just interested. I did a bit more than high school chemistry. And yes, my elementary chemistry book said something like this:
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wr8QWgZSBBEC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=aragonite+supersaturated&source=bl&ots=0isYxvzb-V&sig=5oX9p7ETm2E0XBpzZ3ZBJT0tg8k&hl=en&ei=ozW3SbLgGpye6gORse2aCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

    While surface waters tend to be near equilibrium or supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate, deep waters are undersaturated.

    That had been my understanding, but I’m open to re-education.

  • Nick Stokes

    Steve, I’m not in disputatious mode – I’m just interested. I did a bit more than high school chemistry. And yes, my elementary chemistry book said something like this:
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Wr8QWgZSBBEC&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354&dq=aragonite+supersaturated&source=bl&ots=0isYxvzb-V&sig=5oX9p7ETm2E0XBpzZ3ZBJT0tg8k&hl=en&ei=ozW3SbLgGpye6gORse2aCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

    While surface waters tend to be near equilibrium or supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate, deep waters are undersaturated.

    That had been my understanding, but I’m open to re-education.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    That is correct, deeper waters do tend to be far less saturated (with respect to CaCO3).

    This is simply because colder deeper water under greater hydrostatic pressure has higher physical CO2 solubility i.e. dissolves more CO2. As one proceeds deeper there is a net flux of CO2 into the water phase from aerobically decomposing falling organic particles e.g. dead algal cells etc.

    The higher the level of dissolved CO2 the lower the SIs of calcite and aragonite and the lower the pH (of course).

    Nearer the surface water tend to be warmer but also pHs tends to be higher due to cyanobacterial primary productivity (noting cyanobacteria near the surface ‘consume’ dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate and respire oxygen thus raising pH and dissolving more CO2 etc).

    Yet, the world over, the shallower bottom sediments of the seas still contain intact shells of forams, pteropods etc. In fact paleoclimatologists etc use them routinely for all sorts of proxies e.g. Ca/Sr paleothermometry!

    So we are talking less saturated, not unsaturated in most cases (on continental shelves).

    However, my modeling assumed a seawater temperature of 25 C simply because that approximates the average pH of tropical waters where coral predominate. I can easily recalculate the numbers for any temperature down to the ~minus 3 C of polar near surface waters.

    BTW, FYI the sorts of modeling tools I use take into account ALL chemical speciation and reactivities – and are thus is far more complex that the simple few reactions you assume. This is especially important in seawater where e.g. neutral ion pairs (not solids) e.g. NaCO3, CaCO3, MgCO3 also exist. My models (which contain no empirical estimations unlike say GCMs) solve the enormous Jacobian matrices (1000s of rows and columns) of all the precise equations of all the equilibrium reactions (using a Gibbs Free Energy minimization criterion).

    It is a fact that as SIs decline from positive values towards zero the rates at which biogenic calcite and aragonite can be laid down reduces but that is a different matter. What this usually affects are the types, biodiversity and abundances of CaCO3-depositing taxa.

    But as you can see we have a very, very long way to go to get to the actual pH 7.4 – 7.7 dead seas we are currently being threatened-with in the usual blather of hyperbole and exaggeration.

    Just stop and think for a moment (and perhaps read some literature) about how long corals, forams etc have been on this planet and just how widely atmospheric CO2 levels have varied over that period.

    If you don’t want to believe this specialist that simple fact at least should give you pause for mature reflection.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    That is correct, deeper waters do tend to be far less saturated (with respect to CaCO3).

    This is simply because colder deeper water under greater hydrostatic pressure has higher physical CO2 solubility i.e. dissolves more CO2. As one proceeds deeper there is a net flux of CO2 into the water phase from aerobically decomposing falling organic particles e.g. dead algal cells etc.

    The higher the level of dissolved CO2 the lower the SIs of calcite and aragonite and the lower the pH (of course).

    Nearer the surface water tend to be warmer but also pHs tends to be higher due to cyanobacterial primary productivity (noting cyanobacteria near the surface ‘consume’ dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate and respire oxygen thus raising pH and dissolving more CO2 etc).

    Yet, the world over, the shallower bottom sediments of the seas still contain intact shells of forams, pteropods etc. In fact paleoclimatologists etc use them routinely for all sorts of proxies e.g. Ca/Sr paleothermometry!

    So we are talking less saturated, not unsaturated in most cases (on continental shelves).

    However, my modeling assumed a seawater temperature of 25 C simply because that approximates the average pH of tropical waters where coral predominate. I can easily recalculate the numbers for any temperature down to the ~minus 3 C of polar near surface waters.

    BTW, FYI the sorts of modeling tools I use take into account ALL chemical speciation and reactivities – and are thus is far more complex that the simple few reactions you assume. This is especially important in seawater where e.g. neutral ion pairs (not solids) e.g. NaCO3, CaCO3, MgCO3 also exist. My models (which contain no empirical estimations unlike say GCMs) solve the enormous Jacobian matrices (1000s of rows and columns) of all the precise equations of all the equilibrium reactions (using a Gibbs Free Energy minimization criterion).

    It is a fact that as SIs decline from positive values towards zero the rates at which biogenic calcite and aragonite can be laid down reduces but that is a different matter. What this usually affects are the types, biodiversity and abundances of CaCO3-depositing taxa.

    But as you can see we have a very, very long way to go to get to the actual pH 7.4 – 7.7 dead seas we are currently being threatened-with in the usual blather of hyperbole and exaggeration.

    Just stop and think for a moment (and perhaps read some literature) about how long corals, forams etc have been on this planet and just how widely atmospheric CO2 levels have varied over that period.

    If you don’t want to believe this specialist that simple fact at least should give you pause for mature reflection.

  • Nick Stokes

    OK Steve, I did read some more, and got to this 1999 Science paper(Kleypas et al):
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5411/118
    Their figures on current supersaturation are similar to yours. They do argue, though, that reduced supersaturation is an issue for some marine organisms. It’s not a matter of actually dissolving their CaCO3, but of making it more difficult for them to extract it from the water.

    I have no strong opinion at the moment on whether that is true.

  • Nick Stokes

    OK Steve, I did read some more, and got to this 1999 Science paper(Kleypas et al):
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5411/118
    Their figures on current supersaturation are similar to yours. They do argue, though, that reduced supersaturation is an issue for some marine organisms. It’s not a matter of actually dissolving their CaCO3, but of making it more difficult for them to extract it from the water.

    I have no strong opinion at the moment on whether that is true.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #42

    “They do argue, though, that reduced supersaturation is an issue for some marine organisms. It’s not a matter of actually dissolving their CaCO3, but of making it more difficult for them to extract it from the water.I have no strong opinion at the moment on whether that is true.”

    Me #41

    “It is a fact that as SIs decline from positive values towards zero the rates at which biogenic calcite and aragonite can be laid down reduces but that is a different matter. What this usually affects are the types, biodiversity and abundances of CaCO3-depositing taxa.”

    So, we slowly (if perhaps a little reluctantly on Nick’s part) converge!

    It is surely self-evident by now that increasing (and decreasing) atmospheric CO2 will affect marine CaCO3-secreting organisms. However, such effects have occurred over at least 300 My that we have a good knowledge of. They are clearly part of the normal variations which affected the normal dynamic, ongoing processes of evolution. BTW, over this period our oldest ancestors were little more than hamsters!

    AGW catastrophism, which is the product of a naive, late 20th century post-modernist cult called environmentalism is rooted in the here and now.
    Its adherents have little real empathy for the manifold natural stressors and inherent dynamism of this now 3.8 Gy-old biological world they profess to adore and care-for. It is an illusion. Just as for all religious bigots, for modern green fanatics, Darwin never really rates, poor fellow.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Nick #42

    “They do argue, though, that reduced supersaturation is an issue for some marine organisms. It’s not a matter of actually dissolving their CaCO3, but of making it more difficult for them to extract it from the water.I have no strong opinion at the moment on whether that is true.”

    Me #41

    “It is a fact that as SIs decline from positive values towards zero the rates at which biogenic calcite and aragonite can be laid down reduces but that is a different matter. What this usually affects are the types, biodiversity and abundances of CaCO3-depositing taxa.”

    So, we slowly (if perhaps a little reluctantly on Nick’s part) converge!

    It is surely self-evident by now that increasing (and decreasing) atmospheric CO2 will affect marine CaCO3-secreting organisms. However, such effects have occurred over at least 300 My that we have a good knowledge of. They are clearly part of the normal variations which affected the normal dynamic, ongoing processes of evolution. BTW, over this period our oldest ancestors were little more than hamsters!

    AGW catastrophism, which is the product of a naive, late 20th century post-modernist cult called environmentalism is rooted in the here and now.
    Its adherents have little real empathy for the manifold natural stressors and inherent dynamism of this now 3.8 Gy-old biological world they profess to adore and care-for. It is an illusion. Just as for all religious bigots, for modern green fanatics, Darwin never really rates, poor fellow.

  • Alex Harvey

    Well whilst we’re feeling all disputatious there’s a Nature Geoscience article that’s just appeared:

    Moy, Andrew D., William R. Howard, Stephen G. Bray and Thomas W. Trull 2009: Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo460

    ABSTRACT Anthropogenic carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the oceans, lowering both the concentration of carbonate ions and the pH (ref. 1), resulting in the acidification of sea water. Previous laboratory experiments have shown that decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine calcareous organisms to show reduced calcification rates2, 3, 4, 5. If these results are widely applicable to ocean settings, ocean acidification could lead to ecosystem shifts. Planktonic foraminifera are single-celled calcite-secreting organisms that represent between 25 and 50% of the total open-ocean marine carbonate flux6 and influence the transport of organic carbon to the ocean interior7. Here we compare the shell weights of the modern foraminifer Globigerina bulloides collected from sediment traps in the Southern Ocean with the weights of shells preserved in the underlying Holocene-aged sediments. We find that modern shell weights are 30–35% lower than those from the sediments, consistent with reduced calcification today induced by ocean acidification. We also find a link between higher atmospheric carbon dioxide and low shell weights in a 50,000-year-long record obtained from a Southern Ocean marine sediment core. It is unclear whether reduced calcification will affect the survival of this and other species, but a decline in the abundance of foraminifera caused by acidification could affect both marine ecosystems and the oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    They’re saying this is observational proof: “Our results provide the first field observation for reduced calcification in Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera and suggest that there has been a ~30-35% reduction in the calcification of one species. We suggest this is due to anthropogenic ocean acidification.”

    Moreover their Fig. 4 purportedly shows that “G. bulloides shell weights track the Vostok pCO2 record over the past 50,000 years.”

    Scary stuff. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Well whilst we’re feeling all disputatious there’s a Nature Geoscience article that’s just appeared:

    Moy, Andrew D., William R. Howard, Stephen G. Bray and Thomas W. Trull 2009: Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo460

    ABSTRACT Anthropogenic carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the oceans, lowering both the concentration of carbonate ions and the pH (ref. 1), resulting in the acidification of sea water. Previous laboratory experiments have shown that decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine calcareous organisms to show reduced calcification rates2, 3, 4, 5. If these results are widely applicable to ocean settings, ocean acidification could lead to ecosystem shifts. Planktonic foraminifera are single-celled calcite-secreting organisms that represent between 25 and 50% of the total open-ocean marine carbonate flux6 and influence the transport of organic carbon to the ocean interior7. Here we compare the shell weights of the modern foraminifer Globigerina bulloides collected from sediment traps in the Southern Ocean with the weights of shells preserved in the underlying Holocene-aged sediments. We find that modern shell weights are 30–35% lower than those from the sediments, consistent with reduced calcification today induced by ocean acidification. We also find a link between higher atmospheric carbon dioxide and low shell weights in a 50,000-year-long record obtained from a Southern Ocean marine sediment core. It is unclear whether reduced calcification will affect the survival of this and other species, but a decline in the abundance of foraminifera caused by acidification could affect both marine ecosystems and the oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    They’re saying this is observational proof: “Our results provide the first field observation for reduced calcification in Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera and suggest that there has been a ~30-35% reduction in the calcification of one species. We suggest this is due to anthropogenic ocean acidification.”

    Moreover their Fig. 4 purportedly shows that “G. bulloides shell weights track the Vostok pCO2 record over the past 50,000 years.”

    Scary stuff. :)

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #43,

    It is surely self-evident by now that increasing (and decreasing) atmospheric CO2 will affect marine CaCO3-secreting organisms. However, such effects have occurred over at least 300 My that we have a good knowledge of.

    What about the rate of change of pC02 though? It seems to be the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 that the alarmists are making so much of.

    E.g. the Royal Society 2005 report (p. vi):

    If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this rate of change is probably one hundred times greater than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of the biological effects.

    http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve #43,

    It is surely self-evident by now that increasing (and decreasing) atmospheric CO2 will affect marine CaCO3-secreting organisms. However, such effects have occurred over at least 300 My that we have a good knowledge of.

    What about the rate of change of pC02 though? It seems to be the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 that the alarmists are making so much of.

    E.g. the Royal Society 2005 report (p. vi):

    If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this rate of change is probably one hundred times greater than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of the biological effects.

    http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Moy et al 2009 conclude by saying:

    Our results provide the first field observation for reduced
    calcification in Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera and
    suggest that there has been a 30-35% reduction in the calcification
    of one species. We suggest this is due to anthropogenic ocean
    acidification. Our results may not be applicable to all species
    of planktonic foraminifera as many taxa in this group, unlike
    G. bulloides, bear algal symbionts, which may alter their calcification
    response to changing ocean carbonate chemistry8. Foraminifera
    secrete calcite, the most stable and robust form of calcium
    carbonate. Shells of the metastable carbonate mineral aragonite,
    such as those of pteropods, may be more vulnerable to acidification,
    especially as the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with
    respect to aragonite within this century5.

    May I respond as follows:

    (1) Moy et al. 2009 have chosen one species only (G. bulloides). Their paper freely admits that: Increased CO2 in laboratory
    manipulations results in reduced calcification rates in planktonic
    foraminifera2 and other marine carbonate organisms including
    some, but not all, coccolithophorids3,10, corals4 and pteropods5.
    Earlier studies of down-core and core-top sediment in the
    North Atlantic suggest that higher atmospheric CO2 reduces the
    calcification rate of planktonic foraminifera11, although other
    variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrient availability may
    also influence calcification rates12,13.

    So they have chosen one species only out of thousands which just happens to shows a direct response to CO2 in calcification rates but freely admit that numerous other factors are equally significant over a wide range of species and taxa. So I say …so what? This is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

    (2) Their reference 5 (Orr et al. 2005) which they regard as authoritative enough to quote in their last paragraph claims that the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite within this century. Let me examine this claim.

    FYI the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 over all 10 – 12 operating monitoring stations below 30 S between 1982 and 2007 (NOAA validated data to end 2007) can be best fit with the exponential relation pCO2 (ppmv) = 0.0503exp(0.00440x) where x is the year (R^2 = 0.9942). This means our current best possible estimate of the likely pCO2 over the Southern Ocean in year 2100 is about 518 ppmv. Incidentally the global mean pCO2 between 1980 and 2008 ((NOAA validated data to end 2008) can be best fit with the exponential relation pCO2 (ppmv) = 0.0445exp(0.00450x) where x is the year (R^2 = 0.9829). This means our current best possible estimate of the likely global mean pCO2 over the entire planet in 2100 is about 566 ppmv – lagging approximately 48 ppmv above that over the Southern Ocean (interestingly enough – but this is another story for another time). Thus at a mean water temperature of (say) 7 deg C and an atmospheric pCO2 of 518 ppmv the SI of aragonite in surface water of the Southern Ocean in 2100 is predicted to be around 0.11 i.e. still just slightly supersaturated by a factor of ~1.3 i.e. not unsaturated.

    However, we MUST remember that this refers only to a thin layer of surface water which is equilibrated with the atmosphere (in 2100) and equilibrium thermodynamically at that. It takes absolutely no account of, and assumes no mixing to depth. The Southern Ocean is distinguished by the fact that it contains the greatest density of down welling zones in all the world’s oceans. Thus surface waters are continually being mixed into deeper waters which are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere and are being replaced by warmer surface waters from further north.

    Furthermore, it is well known the Southern Ocean surface has the highest cyanobacterial primary productivity of all the world’s oceans thus having the highest flux of dissolved CO2 into biomass sinking with or without down welling surface water. The average cyanobacterial primary productivity of the entire Southern Ocean below 30S is presently about 0.55% higher than the world average productivity and this offset has increased roughly linearly from a level around 0.30% higher in 1982, so it is slowly improving at about 0.01%/year – this is the so-called CO2 fertilization effect. Thus the average cyanobacterial primary productivity of the whole Southern Ocean in 2100 should be about 0.55 % + 0.92% or about 1.47% higher than the global oceanic average rate in 2100. None of this is taken into account either.

    Sorry guys, but the fat lady has not yet commenced to sing.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Moy et al 2009 conclude by saying:

    Our results provide the first field observation for reduced
    calcification in Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera and
    suggest that there has been a 30-35% reduction in the calcification
    of one species. We suggest this is due to anthropogenic ocean
    acidification. Our results may not be applicable to all species
    of planktonic foraminifera as many taxa in this group, unlike
    G. bulloides, bear algal symbionts, which may alter their calcification
    response to changing ocean carbonate chemistry8. Foraminifera
    secrete calcite, the most stable and robust form of calcium
    carbonate. Shells of the metastable carbonate mineral aragonite,
    such as those of pteropods, may be more vulnerable to acidification,
    especially as the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with
    respect to aragonite within this century5.

    May I respond as follows:

    (1) Moy et al. 2009 have chosen one species only (G. bulloides). Their paper freely admits that: Increased CO2 in laboratory
    manipulations results in reduced calcification rates in planktonic
    foraminifera2 and other marine carbonate organisms including
    some, but not all, coccolithophorids3,10, corals4 and pteropods5.
    Earlier studies of down-core and core-top sediment in the
    North Atlantic suggest that higher atmospheric CO2 reduces the
    calcification rate of planktonic foraminifera11, although other
    variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrient availability may
    also influence calcification rates12,13.

    So they have chosen one species only out of thousands which just happens to shows a direct response to CO2 in calcification rates but freely admit that numerous other factors are equally significant over a wide range of species and taxa. So I say …so what? This is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

    (2) Their reference 5 (Orr et al. 2005) which they regard as authoritative enough to quote in their last paragraph claims that the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite within this century. Let me examine this claim.

    FYI the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 over all 10 – 12 operating monitoring stations below 30 S between 1982 and 2007 (NOAA validated data to end 2007) can be best fit with the exponential relation pCO2 (ppmv) = 0.0503exp(0.00440x) where x is the year (R^2 = 0.9942). This means our current best possible estimate of the likely pCO2 over the Southern Ocean in year 2100 is about 518 ppmv. Incidentally the global mean pCO2 between 1980 and 2008 ((NOAA validated data to end 2008) can be best fit with the exponential relation pCO2 (ppmv) = 0.0445exp(0.00450x) where x is the year (R^2 = 0.9829). This means our current best possible estimate of the likely global mean pCO2 over the entire planet in 2100 is about 566 ppmv – lagging approximately 48 ppmv above that over the Southern Ocean (interestingly enough – but this is another story for another time). Thus at a mean water temperature of (say) 7 deg C and an atmospheric pCO2 of 518 ppmv the SI of aragonite in surface water of the Southern Ocean in 2100 is predicted to be around 0.11 i.e. still just slightly supersaturated by a factor of ~1.3 i.e. not unsaturated.

    However, we MUST remember that this refers only to a thin layer of surface water which is equilibrated with the atmosphere (in 2100) and equilibrium thermodynamically at that. It takes absolutely no account of, and assumes no mixing to depth. The Southern Ocean is distinguished by the fact that it contains the greatest density of down welling zones in all the world’s oceans. Thus surface waters are continually being mixed into deeper waters which are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere and are being replaced by warmer surface waters from further north.

    Furthermore, it is well known the Southern Ocean surface has the highest cyanobacterial primary productivity of all the world’s oceans thus having the highest flux of dissolved CO2 into biomass sinking with or without down welling surface water. The average cyanobacterial primary productivity of the entire Southern Ocean below 30S is presently about 0.55% higher than the world average productivity and this offset has increased roughly linearly from a level around 0.30% higher in 1982, so it is slowly improving at about 0.01%/year – this is the so-called CO2 fertilization effect. Thus the average cyanobacterial primary productivity of the whole Southern Ocean in 2100 should be about 0.55 % + 0.92% or about 1.47% higher than the global oceanic average rate in 2100. None of this is taken into account either.

    Sorry guys, but the fat lady has not yet commenced to sing.

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve,

    I know nothing, but I have some questions, as devil’s advocate:

    1) Don’t the coral reefs all lie in shallow water? If so, would the ‘mixing to depth’ issue be applicable if the objective was specifically to save coral reefs?

    2) Is it fair to say that the results could probably be generalised to other species of planktonic foraminifera? Or do you think they’ve cherry-picked by choosing this species?

    3) Is it fair to say that even if we accept that ‘…the SI of aragonite in surface water of the Southern Ocean in 2100 is predicted to be around 0.11 i.e. still just slightly supersaturated…’ this species is unlikely to survive till 2200?

  • Alex Harvey

    Steve,

    I know nothing, but I have some questions, as devil’s advocate:

    1) Don’t the coral reefs all lie in shallow water? If so, would the ‘mixing to depth’ issue be applicable if the objective was specifically to save coral reefs?

    2) Is it fair to say that the results could probably be generalised to other species of planktonic foraminifera? Or do you think they’ve cherry-picked by choosing this species?

    3) Is it fair to say that even if we accept that ‘…the SI of aragonite in surface water of the Southern Ocean in 2100 is predicted to be around 0.11 i.e. still just slightly supersaturated…’ this species is unlikely to survive till 2200?

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    In the spirit of David Stockwell I have spent the last few hours trying to test the statistical validity of the May et al. 2009 quote from, and hence endorsement of, the Orr et al. 2005 assertion that the Southern Ocean (SO) will become unsaturated with respect to aragonite by 2100.

    In this connection I note that there are various definitions of just what constitutes the SO. Moy et al. 2009 clearly regard it as below approximately 45S as their G. bulloides cores were obtained just south of Tasmania.

    Given they are based in Hobart I guess it didn’t really pay to ‘knock themselves out’ getting seabed core anyway.

    However I do note that a narrower definition of the Southern Ocean considers it to be south of 60S and that part of the ocean has a (colder) known mean temperature of about 4 C (annual and geographic range -2 C – +10 C).

    Putting that fact aside for the moment (but noting it) I then attempted to calculate an estimate for a mean +2 sigma (standard deviations) pCO2 likely to apply around 2100 for the larger Moy et al. 2009-style SO and got a value of 572 ppmv.

    Even then lowering the mean water temperature to 6 C which is very conservative for a greater ‘below-45S’ SO I get a calculated SI for aragonite of +0.02 at year 2100 i.e. it still not unsaturated even at an estimated pCO2 = estimated mean pCO2 + 2 sigma.

    Only if I lower the temperature still further to 4.5 C does the aragonite SI (at estimated mean pCO2 + 2 sigma) fall to -0.02 i.e. aragonite becomes just unsaturated.

    I have therefore come to the inescapable conclusion that while Moy et al. 2009 are themselves employing an operational definition of the SO which clearly extends north as far as 45S, the only way they can make a statement like: “Shells of the metastable carbonate mineral aragonite,
    such as those of pteropods, may be more vulnerable to acidification,
    especially as the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with
    respect to aragonite within this century5.” is if the reference they quote/endorse is actually itself likely referring to a colder and hence more geographically restricted definition of the SO which does not extend northwards beyond about 60S i.e. does not extends as far north as their own definition of the SO by some 15 degrees.

    I guess any reasonably astute geochemistry-trained reader is therefore entitled to conclude that in making their reference to the state of aragonite saturation in the ‘Southern Ocean’ by year 2100 Moy et al. 2009 have been squarely caught out referring to a situation in a narrower, much more southerly, significantly colder (and hence more CO2-rich) definition of the Southern Ocean than their own one.

    Need I say much more other than to observe that once again we can deduce by simple vigilance just how the little sophistries of the AGW bandwagon continue to just keep rolling along…..

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    In the spirit of David Stockwell I have spent the last few hours trying to test the statistical validity of the May et al. 2009 quote from, and hence endorsement of, the Orr et al. 2005 assertion that the Southern Ocean (SO) will become unsaturated with respect to aragonite by 2100.

    In this connection I note that there are various definitions of just what constitutes the SO. Moy et al. 2009 clearly regard it as below approximately 45S as their G. bulloides cores were obtained just south of Tasmania.

    Given they are based in Hobart I guess it didn’t really pay to ‘knock themselves out’ getting seabed core anyway.

    However I do note that a narrower definition of the Southern Ocean considers it to be south of 60S and that part of the ocean has a (colder) known mean temperature of about 4 C (annual and geographic range -2 C – +10 C).

    Putting that fact aside for the moment (but noting it) I then attempted to calculate an estimate for a mean +2 sigma (standard deviations) pCO2 likely to apply around 2100 for the larger Moy et al. 2009-style SO and got a value of 572 ppmv.

    Even then lowering the mean water temperature to 6 C which is very conservative for a greater ‘below-45S’ SO I get a calculated SI for aragonite of +0.02 at year 2100 i.e. it still not unsaturated even at an estimated pCO2 = estimated mean pCO2 + 2 sigma.

    Only if I lower the temperature still further to 4.5 C does the aragonite SI (at estimated mean pCO2 + 2 sigma) fall to -0.02 i.e. aragonite becomes just unsaturated.

    I have therefore come to the inescapable conclusion that while Moy et al. 2009 are themselves employing an operational definition of the SO which clearly extends north as far as 45S, the only way they can make a statement like: “Shells of the metastable carbonate mineral aragonite,
    such as those of pteropods, may be more vulnerable to acidification,
    especially as the Southern Ocean will become undersaturated with
    respect to aragonite within this century5.” is if the reference they quote/endorse is actually itself likely referring to a colder and hence more geographically restricted definition of the SO which does not extend northwards beyond about 60S i.e. does not extends as far north as their own definition of the SO by some 15 degrees.

    I guess any reasonably astute geochemistry-trained reader is therefore entitled to conclude that in making their reference to the state of aragonite saturation in the ‘Southern Ocean’ by year 2100 Moy et al. 2009 have been squarely caught out referring to a situation in a narrower, much more southerly, significantly colder (and hence more CO2-rich) definition of the Southern Ocean than their own one.

    Need I say much more other than to observe that once again we can deduce by simple vigilance just how the little sophistries of the AGW bandwagon continue to just keep rolling along…..

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #47

    (1) No corals below 45S therefore arguments re Moy et al. 2009 do not apply to corals. Corals are based on aragonite. Note well the solubility of aragonite is INVERSELY proportional to temperature (due to the increased aqueous solubility of CO2 at lower temperature).

    (2) They cherry-picked. Outrageously so. There are plenty more references than they quote which show that the growth of many CaCO3-secreting marine organisms increases with increasing pCO2 (and will keep on increasing right up to at least 1500 ppmv).

    (3) Refer (1) above. Noting again that aragonite become more soluble at lower temperatures it is likely that there will be some coastal Antarctic pteropods (who make shells of aragonite) which can occur at temperatures down to about -3 C may well become extinct about or after year 2100. But this probably doesn’t apply to the greater Southern Ocean to 45S (or 30 S) i.e. in regions with mean seawater temperature above about 4 C – refer also my previous post.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Alex #47

    (1) No corals below 45S therefore arguments re Moy et al. 2009 do not apply to corals. Corals are based on aragonite. Note well the solubility of aragonite is INVERSELY proportional to temperature (due to the increased aqueous solubility of CO2 at lower temperature).

    (2) They cherry-picked. Outrageously so. There are plenty more references than they quote which show that the growth of many CaCO3-secreting marine organisms increases with increasing pCO2 (and will keep on increasing right up to at least 1500 ppmv).

    (3) Refer (1) above. Noting again that aragonite become more soluble at lower temperatures it is likely that there will be some coastal Antarctic pteropods (who make shells of aragonite) which can occur at temperatures down to about -3 C may well become extinct about or after year 2100. But this probably doesn’t apply to the greater Southern Ocean to 45S (or 30 S) i.e. in regions with mean seawater temperature above about 4 C – refer also my previous post.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    BTW, if this discussion is to continue those interested would be wise to make sure they thoroughly understand the concept of Carbonate Compensation Depth (CCD) and note well we are strictly talking about depths above the calcite and aragonite CCDs e.g. :
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_Compensation_Depth

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    BTW, if this discussion is to continue those interested would be wise to make sure they thoroughly understand the concept of Carbonate Compensation Depth (CCD) and note well we are strictly talking about depths above the calcite and aragonite CCDs e.g. :
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_Compensation_Depth

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Cohenite #20

    “If cosmic rays are implicated in cooling via the accelerated formation of clouds then the converse may be illustrative; Kump and Pollard have looked at the absence of clouds as the cause of super-greenhouse conditions;…”

    BTW, may I thank you for the web reference you posted:

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ps-aoc040708.php

    which more or less describes what I have been rabbiting on about for several years.

    As you know, I strongly believe that the world’s photosynthetic biomass (both oceanic and land-based) has ‘learnt’ over ~2.8 Gy how to regulate the production of biogenic aerosols (both DMS and isoprenes etc – the authors of this paper don’t mention the latter) in order to regulate global cloud formation/altitude and cloud type/density (high aerosol clouds are more reflective) and hence SW albedo.

    This is essentially because photosynthesis has a photochemically limited temperature range and SW flux range in which it can safely operate.

    This I strongly suspect is the key to the world climate system’s inbuilt low sensitivity to CO2 as increasing CO2 increases this biomass and hence the production rates of biogenic aerosol cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs).

    In this context, CRF, Milankovitch etc are the ‘cream on the coffee’ (but hey, what is coffee without cream).

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Cohenite #20

    “If cosmic rays are implicated in cooling via the accelerated formation of clouds then the converse may be illustrative; Kump and Pollard have looked at the absence of clouds as the cause of super-greenhouse conditions;…”

    BTW, may I thank you for the web reference you posted:

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ps-aoc040708.php

    which more or less describes what I have been rabbiting on about for several years.

    As you know, I strongly believe that the world’s photosynthetic biomass (both oceanic and land-based) has ‘learnt’ over ~2.8 Gy how to regulate the production of biogenic aerosols (both DMS and isoprenes etc – the authors of this paper don’t mention the latter) in order to regulate global cloud formation/altitude and cloud type/density (high aerosol clouds are more reflective) and hence SW albedo.

    This is essentially because photosynthesis has a photochemically limited temperature range and SW flux range in which it can safely operate.

    This I strongly suspect is the key to the world climate system’s inbuilt low sensitivity to CO2 as increasing CO2 increases this biomass and hence the production rates of biogenic aerosol cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs).

    In this context, CRF, Milankovitch etc are the ‘cream on the coffee’ (but hey, what is coffee without cream).

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Added to push long link down below first line.

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2004)021%3C0481%3AEOPPFD%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

    The biological significance of an error of 30 umol
    /m^2/s at low PPFD and 80 umol/m^2/s2 across all
    Photosynthetic Flux Density (PPFD) can be assessed by considering the impact that a
    hypothetical accumulated error in the same direction (1
    or 2) throughout the day would have on crop productivity.
    The hypothetical accumulated error for one day
    from the 80 umol/m^2/s2 error corresponds to ±5 g
    CO2 fixed /m^2/day based on measurements of a maize
    canopy (Norman and Arkebauer 1991). The corresponding
    error at low PPFD levels would be approximately ±1.9 g CO2 fixed /m^2/day by the maize canopy.

    The best model to estimate the PPFD from the 368-
    nm channel irradiance measurements made by the UVMFRSR
    instrument in the USDA UV-B Climate Monitoring
    Network depends on the availability of ancillary
    measurements. The best model included global and diffuse
    368-nm irradiance, solar zenith angle, sky brightness,
    AND AEROSOL TRANSMITTANCE and had a residual error
    of 79 umol/m^2/s PPFD. Aerosol transmittance is,
    however, difficult to determine under cloudy conditions.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Added to push long link down below first line.

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2004)021%3C0481%3AEOPPFD%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

    The biological significance of an error of 30 umol
    /m^2/s at low PPFD and 80 umol/m^2/s2 across all
    Photosynthetic Flux Density (PPFD) can be assessed by considering the impact that a
    hypothetical accumulated error in the same direction (1
    or 2) throughout the day would have on crop productivity.
    The hypothetical accumulated error for one day
    from the 80 umol/m^2/s2 error corresponds to ±5 g
    CO2 fixed /m^2/day based on measurements of a maize
    canopy (Norman and Arkebauer 1991). The corresponding
    error at low PPFD levels would be approximately ±1.9 g CO2 fixed /m^2/day by the maize canopy.

    The best model to estimate the PPFD from the 368-
    nm channel irradiance measurements made by the UVMFRSR
    instrument in the USDA UV-B Climate Monitoring
    Network depends on the availability of ancillary
    measurements. The best model included global and diffuse
    368-nm irradiance, solar zenith angle, sky brightness,
    AND AEROSOL TRANSMITTANCE and had a residual error
    of 79 umol/m^2/s PPFD. Aerosol transmittance is,
    however, difficult to determine under cloudy conditions.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Oops, global dimming makes a comeback:

    Pushing another link down.

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549992/?sc=dwhn

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    Oops, global dimming makes a comeback:

    Pushing another link down.

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549992/?sc=dwhn

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short
  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short
  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world’s oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 – 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world’s land plants process the other 52%).

    Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable.

    This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF.

    As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    It is useful to note that there is about 1 Gt of live cyanobacteria in the world’s oceans at any one time but that this living biomass is processing via photosynthesis (the primary production PP) about 45 – 50 Gt/y of carbon annually. This is about 48% of the sum total of the global CO2 being fixed photosynthetically (the world’s land plants process the other 52%).

    Current GCMs typically get annual PP right to within a factor of about 2 and typically agree amongst each other with an r of <0.4 (Carr et al., 2006). In this context it can be seen that modern GCMs would have essentially no skill whatsoever at allowing for the global oceanic production of biogenic CCN (principally DMS-derived). The idea that we might have any quantitative notion of the effect of biogenic CCN on cloud frequency, density, reflectivity and hence SW albedo from biogenic CCN in response to rising SSTs and atmospheric CO2 is laughable.

    This also means that such models would have absolutely no skill at discerning whether there was a significant separate effect on cloud production etc involving the CRF.

    As highly complex as the global climate system is, this means we have absolutely no recourse in deconvoluting major drivers and their effects other than to direct empirical examinations such as Shaviv has done.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43

    (2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com Steve Short

    (1) Atmos. pCO2 = 2692 ppmv for Calcite SI=0.00; Seawater pH = 7.43(2) Atmos. pCO2 = 1905 ppmv for Aragonite SI = 0.00; Seawater pH = 7.58

  • http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/5.html John1412

    Very nice site! cheap viagra

  • http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/5.html John1412

    Very nice site! [url=http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

  • http://opeyixa.com/qoxxro/5.html John1412

    Very nice site!

  • Anonomous

    I think it might be worthwhile checking to see if the solar system might have been transiting an old arrested shock wave front from an ancient supernova during this period.  The unique double hump shape of this cold interval might be the result of passing through the leading edge of the shock front, continuing into the back side and then then re-emerging again.

    –A speculation

  • Helder Velez

    The Sun ‘farted’. Planet after planet the Sun created the solar system. It sits above our heads and we dont see it. Asterix feared that the sky could fall over his head ;)
    Why? No one will beleive.

  • Pingback: wypozyczalnia busow

Bad Behavior has blocked 71627 access attempts in the last 7 days.