• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bob Park and Global Warming

From Desperate Diamond:
3. Yes, its currently rising. Define rapidly. It has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age


Lets' begin again. Mortella makes a claim of rapid rise of carbon dioxide. Where are her sources? How rapid is rapid? Does rapid mean unprecedentedly rapid? Over how long a period has this rapid rise occcured? This is a science forum, why not a few facts to leaven the debate?

It's risen by 50% since first measured in, I think, about 1824. The Ice Age ended 12,000 years ago. Try to define that as not rapid. Look at the graph. Change the subject; what about the anti-US conspiracy that's so popular with denialists? Not that desperate?
 
CapelDodger said:
From Desperate Diamond:

It's risen by 50% since first measured in, I think, about 1824. The Ice Age ended 12,000 years ago. Try to define that as not rapid. Look at the graph. Change the subject; what about the anti-US conspiracy that's so popular with denialists? Not that desperate?

What is it about this subject that brings out all the insults in otherwise rational people?

1. Present your data and sources.
2. What graph?
3. This is a science forum. If you want to discuss attitudes to the US, there is a Politics forum for that.

oh and for your benefit, here's a science report to chew on:

Records of Dome Concordia, Antarctica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Nature 291: 112-114.
What was done
The authors present a record of atmospheric carbon dioxide and proxy air temperature data obtained from an ice core drilled at Dome Concordia, Antarctica (Dome C; 75° 06' S, 123° 24' E) for the period between 22,000 and 9,000 years before present, which covers the transition from glacial to interglacial climate conditions.

What was learned
The authors express confidence that their record "is an accurate representation of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations" over the period of study. With that said, they report the "main feature" of their CO2 record is the 40% increase from a mean value of 189 ppm around 17,000 years ago to a mean value of 265 ppm around 11,000 ago. Furthermore, close examination of the rise in temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration at the end of the last glacial maximum (based upon a linear fit of the data) revealed the increase in temperature took place at 17,800 ± 300 years ago, while the increase in CO2 took place at 17,000 ± 200 years ago. On this basis, the authors conclude that "the start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years."

Makes it tough when the clear record of ice cores shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise by centuries, doesn't it? And why did the CO2 concentration rise by 40% without any civilization at all?
 
...why did the CO2 concentration rise by 40% without any civilization at all?

Any correlation with volcanic activity?
 
Diamond said:

2. What graph?

Hmmmm....well, davefoc posted a graph (which you quoted in your reply). I think CapelDodger was obviously refering to that.

This graph does seem to show a rapid increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, from around 280ppm in 1800 to 330 ppm at present, an average rate of increase of around 0.4ppm per year (with what seems to be a much larger rate over the last century).

In contrast, the link you gave mentions an increase of 76ppm over a period of 6000 years, an average rate of increase of 0.013 per year. Taken at face value, this data seems to support the contention that there has been a particularly rapid increase in the CO2 concentration over the last two centuries. Would you like to comment on this?

Makes it tough when the clear record of ice cores shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise by centuries, doesn't it?

I'm not sure the particular data you cite is that conclusive- it concludes that there is a lag of 800 plus/minus 600 years, so the error is rather big. So it could well still be consistent with small lag in the other direction. I think better data is needed here.

But in any case, even if we accept this, it only leads to the conclusion that an increase temperature can drive an increase in CO2- it doesn't discount the possibility that the opposite process can occur- that increased CO2 can drive temperature increases.
 
Brian the Snail said:

But in any case, even if we accept this, it only leads to the conclusion that an increase temperature can drive an increase in CO2- it doesn't discount the possibility that the opposite process can occur- that increased CO2 can drive temperature increases.

True, but what is concerning is that in other times of rapid climate change (geologically speaking, of course), it may be that CO2 increase did NOT drive temperature increase. This is concerning because our current climate models, on which we are basing policy decisions, are based on the idea that anthropogenically-based CO2 is or will cause temperature to increase. If this is not neccessarily the case, if it may be that climate is warming due to some other factor, and if it may be true that CO2 is not the cause of global climate increase, then how can we base models on it?

Another thing that worries me is that everyone is pulling out that hockey stick figure without giving it any thought. I'm used to thinking about pretty long timescales, so when I see that figure, the first thing that pops into my head is "what about the REST of it?" Where's the last four billion or so years of earth's climate history? Why are we basing our conclusions about what we know is a chaotic system with many driving factors on only a small handful of data? If you look at the climate record since the last glacial maximum, it seems clear that rapid climate change is not unusual, and also that there must be other causes besides anthropogenic CO2.
 
Phaycops said:


True, but what is concerning is that in other times of rapid climate change (geologically speaking, of course), it may be that CO2 increase did NOT drive temperature increase. This is concerning because our current climate models, on which we are basing policy decisions, are based on the idea that anthropogenically-based CO2 is or will cause temperature to increase. If this is not neccessarily the case, if it may be that climate is warming due to some other factor, and if it may be true that CO2 is not the cause of global climate increase, then how can we base models on it?

Granted, but I'm still not sure that the data that Diamond presented was conclusive either way.

Another thing that worries me is that everyone is pulling out that hockey stick figure without giving it any thought. I'm used to thinking about pretty long timescales, so when I see that figure, the first thing that pops into my head is "what about the REST of it?" Where's the last four billion or so years of earth's climate history? Why are we basing our conclusions about what we know is a chaotic system with many driving factors on only a small handful of data? If you look at the climate record since the last glacial maximum, it seems clear that rapid climate change is not unusual, and also that there must be other causes besides anthropogenic CO2.

I can see this, but I think that the figure that davefoc posted was to show that there has been a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the last couple of centuries, which Diamond seems to be disputing. If you follow the link that davefoc posted, it shows a graph over the last 150,000 years (similar to yours), and the current increase in CO2 level does seem to be unusually fast compared with the trend since the last ice age.

The relationship between CO2 level and global warming is, of course, a different issue.
 
Brian the Snail said:
I'm not sure the particular data you cite is that conclusive- it concludes that there is a lag of 800 plus/minus 600 years, so the error is rather big. So it could well still be consistent with small lag in the other direction. I think better data is needed here.

Well, I'll stop you there. Every study from ice cores shows that carbind dioxide enrichment lags temperature rise by centuries, the average being 800 years. There are NO studies at all which show the reverse.

But in any case, even if we accept this, it only leads to the conclusion that an increase temperature can drive an increase in CO2- it doesn't discount the possibility that the opposite process can occur- that increased CO2 can drive temperature increases.

Yes, and it doesn't prove that its not all caused by pink invisible unicorns either. It appears that a very fixed view is propagated here without any foundation in evidence that carbon dioxide enrichment causes warming.

The reverse certainly appears to happen and several studies have been done on ancient ice cores showing that carbon dioxide enrichment follows temperature rise. There are no exceptions.

Where's the evidence of carbon dioxide enrichment causing warming?
 
Brian the Snail said:
[I can see this, but I think that the figure that davefoc posted was to show that there has been a rapid increase in CO2 concentrations in the last couple of centuries, which Diamond seems to be disputing. If you follow the link that davefoc posted, it shows a graph over the last 150,000 years (similar to yours), and the current increase in CO2 level does seem to be unusually fast compared with the trend since the last ice age.

I don't doubt that periodically carbon dioxide can rise rapidly over decades or even a century or two, but such events are not unique to the last 150 years as Phaycops has shown.

The relationship between CO2 level and global warming is, of course, a different issue.

How about that ? What is the point of this discussion about CO2 if its not to link it to "global warming"?
 
There's a lot of talk going on here that makes the assumption that only CO2 increase can drive major changes in the climate system. Periodic changes in our planet's orbit and orientation cause enormous changes in the planet's energy budget. And good old complicaton comes charging in; when glaciers and icecaps retreat they expose raw land for weathering, which causes an increase in CO2 totally unconnected with the cause of the initial warming. Which can then be presented as a "signficant lag".

Of course previous inter-glacial haven't been human-induced. They've been induced by changes in the planetary energy budget.

Brian has made the point, and done the work, by pointing out the quantitative changes, not the percentage changes. I had tried to make the same point. A 50% increase in CO2 in 200 years allows for only two other such quantitative increases from a zero base - in 12,000 years. And this isn't rapid?

The report that this is all based on - the meta-study - is an obvious nonsense to the meanest forensic mind. One thing that is missing from this whole debate is any appreciation that the essentially North Atlantic experience of the Little Ice Age was not a contentious issue in the scientific or historic fields until it was made so by anti-greenhouse propagandists. As the actual warming of the world became more obvious, the argument shifted to natural variation, as evidenced by the Little Ice Age. But at this point historians and scientists raised their hands and pointed out the truth of the matter. (Go on, make my day.)

So subsequently the argument has been shifted to proving that there was a Little ice Age in the rest of the world, but the people who lived there were too foreign to notice.
 
If the past history of the earth is any indication (and I believe it is), then I can say w/ near 100% certainty that the earth will get warmer, and also that there will be another ice age. And so on and so on. And there's probably not anything we can do about it except adapt to the changes.
 
CapelDodger said:
The report that this is all based on - the meta-study - is an obvious nonsense to the meanest forensic mind. One thing that is missing from this whole debate is any appreciation that the essentially North Atlantic experience of the Little Ice Age was not a contentious issue in the scientific or historic fields until it was made so by anti-greenhouse propagandists. As the actual warming of the world became more obvious, the argument shifted to natural variation, as evidenced by the Little Ice Age. But at this point historians and scientists raised their hands and pointed out the truth of the matter. (Go on, make my day.)

I'm sorry, but my reading comprehension must be off, are you claiming that there was no Little Ice Age?
 
This has probably been discussed here previously, but I just saw a doc on the science channel about it and found it very interesting, particularly as I am an amateur astronomer and enjoy observing the sun (PS there was a beautiful array of sunspots across the entire face of the sun a few weeks ago). Anyway, as a chemist, I won't pretend to know much about this topic, but this does seem plausible. The theory is global warming is mainly a factor of solar activity, with CO2 levels having little impact on climatic conditions.


solar - global warming
 
Diamond said:


Well, I'll stop you there. Every study from ice cores shows that carbind dioxide enrichment lags temperature rise by centuries, the average being 800 years. There are NO studies at all which show the reverse.

No need to stop me, I'd already finished :). I was criticizing the data you cited, which seemed to show one data point with a large error bar. Not surprisingly, I didn't find that very convincing. But if you have other data that you want to share, then feel free to do it (and I'd certainly be interested in seeing it). Could you provide citations for the studies you mention. How many is there?

Yes, and it doesn't prove that its not all caused by pink invisible unicorns either. It appears that a very fixed view is propagated here without any foundation in evidence that carbon dioxide enrichment causes warming.

Well carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so I'm not sure what you mean by "without foundation." What exactly are you saying here: that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist? Or that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't an important factor in previous climate changes?
 
CapelDodger said:
Brian has made the point, and done the work, by pointing out the quantitative changes, not the percentage changes. I had tried to make the same point. A 50% increase in CO2 in 200 years allows for only two other such quantitative increases from a zero base - in 12,000 years. And this isn't rapid?

A 50% increase in a trace gas is still a trace gas. Of course some of that carbon dioxide enrichment must have come from fossil fuels.

Questions: Is carbon dioxide rise a bad thing? Is the carbon dioxide rise driving global warming?

Also correlation does not prove causation. Carbon dioxide would have risen anyway as a result of the warming of the Medieval Warm Period 800-1000 years ago.

The report that this is all based on - the meta-study - is an obvious nonsense to the meanest forensic mind. One thing that is missing from this whole debate is any appreciation that the essentially North Atlantic experience of the Little Ice Age was not a contentious issue in the scientific or historic fields until it was made so by anti-greenhouse propagandists. As the actual warming of the world became more obvious, the argument shifted to natural variation, as evidenced by the Little Ice Age. But at this point historians and scientists raised their hands and pointed out the truth of the matter. (Go on, make my day.)

An outrageous set of statements without a scintilla of evidence to back up those claims. The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Periods are found in proxy studies from around the world. In no way are those events limited to the North Atlantic.

It is a matter of historical records in China and Japan of the cold period of the Little Ice Age corresponded with changes in agriculture and political events of the times. Even the dates of the first cherry blossoms of spring, documented by the medieval Japanese, bear witness to the cold, late springs of the 15th Century.

So subsequently the argument has been shifted to proving that there was a Little ice Age in the rest of the world, but the people who lived there were too foreign to notice.

It has done no such thing. Provide some evidence to back up your claims of such a limitation.
 
Brian the Snail said:
No need to stop me, I'd already finished :). I was criticizing the data you cited, which seemed to show one data point with a large error bar. Not surprisingly, I didn't find that very convincing. But if you have other data that you want to share, then feel free to do it (and I'd certainly be interested in seeing it). Could you provide citations for the studies you mention. How many is there?

Lots.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what's the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.

References
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.

Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Idso, S.B. 1988. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core. Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.

Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Nature 291: 112-114.

Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Smagorinsky, J., Bryan, K., Manabe, S., Armi, L., Bretherton, F.P., Cess, R.D., Gates, W.L, Hansen, J. and Kutzbach, J.E. (Eds.). 1982. Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Second Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.

Well carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so I'm not sure what you mean by "without foundation." What exactly are you saying here: that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist? Or that the Greenhouse Effect wasn't an important factor in previous climate changes?

None of the above. Carbon dioxide is a gas which assists in the retention of heat in the so-called (and bad metaphor) "Greenhouse Effect" of the atmosphere. Far and away the most dominant greenhouse gas (which accounts for 31 of the 33 degrees of the atmospheric retention) is WATER VAPOUR.

The "Greenhouse Effect" is not the only reason why climate changes. More important and significant are solar variation, variations in the Earth's orbit (including the Milankovich cycles), solar motions about the center of gravity of the solar system. It could be complete coincidence that solar cycles have been measured have been measured to be increasingly strong since the "Maunder Minimum" of the 17th Century right at the lowest point of the "Little Ice Age"

Furthermore every study of climate reconstruction of past climates using ice cores has shown that temperature rise happens first and carbon dioxide follows centuries later. So why don't you actually demonstrate that carbon dioxide enrichment is in any way significant to the heat balance of the atmosphere? Or is this just the unwarranted assumption (never proved) that makes me skeptical of the claim?
 
Diamond said:

I don't doubt that periodically carbon dioxide can rise rapidly over decades or even a century or two, but such events are not unique to the last 150 years as Phaycops has shown.

Okay, so what on earth was the point of this exchange with Mortella earlier:

Mortella: The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is something that can be measured and it is rising rapidly
------------------------------------------------------
Diamond 3. Yes, its currently rising. Define rapidly. It has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age

So, now you've changed your story, and are saying that in actual fact, it is rising "rapidly", but such rapid increases aren't unique. But as I showed earlier, the present increase seems to be noteworthy for both its rapidity and magnitude. For example, as the data you cited showed, the sharp increase that took place at the end of the last Ice Age, actually has a rate more than an order of magnitude slower than that currently taking place.

And why did you mention the rise since the last Ice Age, when the data shows that the rate of increase is much smaller than at present?

And another question: do you agree that the increase in CO2 concentration over the last two centuries is predominately due to human activities?

The relationship between CO2 level and global warming is, of course, a different issue.
------------------------------------------------------
How about that ? What is the point of this discussion about CO2 if its not to link it to "global warming"?

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that the quote you cherry-picked is from my response to Phaycops, who was concerned with the use of the "hockey-stick figure", which I took to refer to davefoc's posting of the graph of CO2 levels over the last millenium. She then went on to discuss the links between carbon dioxide and global warming. Although I thought her first concern was valid, I was simply pointing out the graph was used only to establish the rapid rise of CO2 levels over the last 150 years, and said nothing about the link between CO2 and global warming.
 
Brian the Snail said:
So, now you've changed your story, and are saying that in actual fact, it is rising "rapidly", but such rapid increases isn't unique. But as I showed earlier, the present increase seems to be noteworthy for both its rapidity and magnitude. For example, as the data you cited showed, the increase that took place at the end of the last Ice Age, actually has a rate more than an order of magnitude slower than that currently taking place.

No. What you "showed" was that carbon dioxide increases can be much more rapid over a given short period of time than the long term trend would suggest. It's a chaotic system, not one which is in thermodynamic equilibrium.

I have not changed my story. I have pointed out that carbon dioxide enrichment has not been shown to cause temperature rise, even in the distant past when the level was much higher.

And why did you mention the rise since the last Ice Age, when the data shows that the rate of increase is much smaller than at present?

Already answered.

And another question: do you agree that the increase in CO2 concentration over the last two centuries is predominately due to human activities?

I have no doubt that carbon dioxide enrichment has a human component. But from the delayed response to climate warmth that carbon dioxide has shown from every study, it would have risen anyway.

From the perspective of geological time, current carbon dioxide levels are anomalously low. Such a presentation can even be seen in the IPCC's scentific report.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that the quote you cherry-picked is from my response to Phaycops, who was concerned with the use of the "hockey-stick figure", which I took to refer to davefoc's posting of the graph of CO2 levels over the last millenium. She then went on to discuss the links between carbon dioxide and global warming. Although I thought her first concern was valid, I was simply pointing out the graph was used only to establish the rapid rise of CO2 levels over the last 150 years, and said nothing about the link between CO2 and global warming.

But in a chaotic system like the climate, large rises (and falls) can happen for no reason (apart from the flap of a butterfly's wing, perhaps).
 
WildCat said:
If the past history of the earth is any indication (and I believe it is), then I can say w/ near 100% certainty that the earth will get warmer, and also that there will be another ice age. And so on and so on. And there's probably not anything we can do about it except adapt to the changes.

The very success of our species has been adaptation to a changing climate. Now we think we can stop the climate from changing by preventing adaptation (technological progress). I think that idea is extremely dangerous.

Consider: according to pro-human-induced-warming scientist Tom Wigley, the expected rise of between 1.5 and 5.8 degrees by the IPCC would be reduced, if the Kyoto Protocol was fully implemented, by 0.07C, an unmeasureable amount by any technology we possess.

"Tilting at windmills" comes to mind.
 
To CapelDodger:

The Little Ice Age confined to the North Atlantic?

study published in Science (Hendy et al. v.295, 22 Feb 02, p.1511) reports on data from coral cores taken from the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The purpose of the study was to report on changes in sea salinity over the last 420 years.

But in the opening paragraph the authors drop this bombshell on the IPCC's `Hockey Stick' (the IPCC's claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were local events in Europe and were not global events) -

"The Little Ice Age (LIA) appears in most Northern Hemisphere paleoclimate reconstructions as multiple, century-scale periods of anomalously cold, dry conditions between the 15th and late 19th centuries. Glacial advances in both hemispheres and enhanced polar atmospheric circulation suggest that the LIA was a global-scale event."

The authors investigated isotope residues in Pacific coral, and found that the earlier part of the Little Ice Age (LIA) resulted in tropical sea surface temperatures 0.2 to 0.3°C cooler than the long-term average, later giving way to warmer SSTs during the 18th and 19th centuries as the LIA receded.

The authors concluded - "Our results imply that the tropical oceans may have played an important role in driving the LIA glacial expansion during the repeated advances between 1600 and 1860."

Oh dear. The LIA was a detectable phenomenon right around the world....
 

Back
Top Bottom