Borneo stalagmites provide new view of abrupt climate events over 100,000 years

Jun 06, 2013
Georgia Tech researchers Stacy Carolin (Ph.D. candidate), Jessica Moerman (Ph.D. candidate), Eleanor Middlemas (undergraduate), Danja Mewes (undergraduate) and two caving guides (Syria Lejau, Jenny Malang) climb out from Cobweb Cave in Gunung Mulu National Park after a day of rock and water sample collection during the Fall 2012 field trip. Credit: Kim Cobb

A new set of long-term climate records based on cave stalagmites collected from tropical Borneo shows that the western tropical Pacific responded very differently than other regions of the globe to abrupt climate change events. The 100,000-year climate record adds to data on past climate events, and may help scientists assess models designed to predict how the Earth's climate will respond in the future.

The new record resulted from oxygen isotope analysis of more than 1,700 calcium carbonate samples taken from four stalagmites found in three different northern Borneo caves. The results suggest that climate feedbacks within the tropical regions may amplify and prolong abrupt events that were first discovered in the North Atlantic.

The results were scheduled to be published June 6 in Science Express, the electronic advance online publication of the journal Science, and will appear later in an issue of printed publication.

Today, relatively subtle changes in the 's ocean and atmosphere have profound effects on . However, there are few records of past climate changes in this key region that have the length, resolution and age controls needed to reveal the area's response to abrupt climate change events.

"This is a new record from a very important area of the world," said Kim Cobb, an associate professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "This record will provide a new piece of the puzzle from the tropical Pacific showing us how that climate system has responded to forcing events over the past 100,000 years."

Among the findings were some surprises that show just how complicated the Earth's climate system can be. While the stalagmite record reflected responses to abrupt changes known as Heinrich events, another major type of event – known as Dansgaard-Oeschger excursions – left no evidence in the Borneo stalagmites. Both types of abrupt climate change events are prominently featured in a previously-published stalagmite climate record from China – which is only slightly north of Borneo.

This image shows The Secret Chamber inside of Clearwater Connection cave in Gunung Mulu National Park in northern Borneo. Credit: Syria Lejau

"To my knowledge, this is the first record that so clearly shows sensitivity to one set of major events and not another," said Cobb. "These two types of events appear to have different degrees of tropical Pacific involvement, and because the tropical Pacific speaks with such a loud voice when it does speak, we think this is extremely important for understanding the mechanisms underlying these events."

The researchers were also surprised to discover a very large and abrupt signal in their stalagmite climate records precisely when super-volcano Toba erupted nearby, roughly 74,000 years ago.

The team recovered the stalagmites from caves in Gunung Mulu and Gunung Buda National Parks, in northern Borneo, which is located a few degrees north of the Equator in the western Pacific. Back at their Georgia Tech lab, they analyzed the stalagmites for the ratio of oxygen isotopes contained in samples of calcium carbonate, the material from which the stalagmites were formed. That ratio is set by the oxygen isotopes in rainfall at the site, as the water that seeped into the ground dissolved limestone rock and dripped into the caves to form the stalagmites. The stalagmites accumulate at a rate of roughly one centimeter every thousand years.

"Stalagmites are time capsules of climate signals from thousands of years in the past," said Stacy Carolin, a Georgia Tech Ph.D. candidate who gathered and analyzed the stalagmites. "We have instrumental records of climate only for the past 100 years or so, and if we want to look deeper into the past, we have to find records like these that locked in climate signals we can extract today."

In the laboratory, Carolin sawed each stalagmite in half, opening it like a hot dog bun. She then used a tiny drill bit to take samples of the down the center at one-millimeter steps. Because the stalagmites grew at varying rates, each sample represented as little as 60 years of time, or as much as 200 years. The precise ages of the samples were determined by measuring uranium and thorium isotope ratios, an analysis done with the help of Jess F. Adkins, a professor at the California Institute of Technology and a co-author of the study.

Georgia Tech Ph.D. candidates Stacy Carolin and Jessica Moerman prepare for sample collection within Lagang Cave in Gunung Mulu National Park during the Fall 2012 field trip. Credit: Syria Lejau

Rainfall oxygen isotopic ratios are good indicators of the amount of rainfall occurring throughout the region, as determined by a modern-day calibration study recently published by another graduate student in Cobb's lab.

Merging data from the four different stalagmites provided a record of precipitation trends in the western Pacific over the past 100,000 years. That information can be compared to stalagmite and ice core obtained elsewhere in the world.

"This record, which spans the entire last glacial period, adds significantly to the understanding of how various climate forcings are felt by the western tropical Pacific," Carolin added.

Climate scientists are interested in learning more about abrupt climate changes because they indicate that the climate system may have "tipping points." So far, the climate system has responded to rising carbon dioxide levels at a fairly steady rate, but many scientists worry about possible nonlinear effects.

"As a society, we haven't really thought enough about the fact that we are moving Earth's climate system toward a new state very quickly," said Cobb. "It's important to remember that the climate system has important nonlinearities that are most evident in these abrupt . Ultimately, we'd like to be able to reproduce the global signatures of these abrupt climate events with numerical models of the , and investigate the physics that drive such events."

For Carolin, studying the half-meter-long stalagmites brought an awareness that the Earth has not always been as we know it today.

"You have to be impressed with the scope of what you are studying, and recognize that the state our climate is in today is incredibly different from Earth's climate during the last Ice Age," she said. "As we consider how humans may be affecting climate, dissecting what was going on tens of thousands of years ago in all regions of the globe can help scientists better predict how the Earth will respond to modern forcings."

Explore further: NASA image: Beaver complex and July complex wildfires in California

More information: Stacy A. Carolin, et al., "Varied response of western Pacific hydrology to climate forcings over the last glacial period," Science, 2013.

Related Stories

Researchers use stalagmites to study past climate change

May 03, 2012

There is an old trick for remembering the difference between stalactites and stalagmites in a cave: Stalactites hold tight to the ceiling while stalagmites might one day grow to reach the ceiling. Now, it ...

Menacing monsoons

Jun 27, 2012

Studying the long rainy seasons in Indochina can help climatologists understand the accompanying and often threatening weather phenomenon and hopefully bring relief to its inhabitants.

Recommended for you

Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA

15 minutes ago

A chemical used in dry cleaning and fire extinguishers may have been phased out in recent years but NASA said Wednesday that carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) is still being spewed into the atmosphere from an unknown ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Lowell's tough south side

7 hours ago

The south side of Tropical Storm Lowell appears to be its toughest side. That is, the side with the strongest thunderstorms, according to satellite imagery from NOAA's GOES-14 and NASA-NOAA's Suomi NPP satellites.

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (20) Jun 06, 2013
Where are all the denialist retards? They should be here claiming that according to their conservative political ideology, and failed economic principles, observed climate reality can't be real.

They believe that those evil scientists must all be lying about their observations, because they believe that since they themselves are congenital liars, and since every other conservative they know are congenital liars as well, everyone else must be as well.
Birger
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2013
""As a society, we haven't really thought enough about the fact that we are moving Earth's climate system toward a new state very quickly," said Cobb. "It's important to remember that the climate system has important nonlinearities that are most evident in these abrupt climate events."

Anticipates troll screaming "LIES! ALL LIES! LIBRULS ARE CO-OPTING SCIENCE!"

"Ultimately, we'd like to be able to reproduce the global signatures of these abrupt climate events with numerical models of the climate system, and investigate the physics that drive such events."

Yet whenever an inevitably incomplete numerical model is presented, those flaws will be seen as proof that all climate science is bogus.

"The results were scheduled to be published June 6 in Science Express" ...and some conspiracy nuts will read all kinds of symbolism into the results being presented on a historically significant date. If you think I exaggerate, just read sites like WorldNews Daily or listen to Glenn Beck :-)
Byron00
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 07, 2013
I'm going to assume that the two comments above were intended as parodies of hateful, frothing hysteria. In that case, they were rather good -- the only thing missing was a demand to reestablish the Inquisition, so doubters and skeptics could be burned at the stake.
EdwdLny
1.8 / 5 (19) Jun 07, 2013
" Where are all the denialist retards? " Hmmm, a immature response to those whom have the chutzpa to disagree with you. Color me unsurprised.

" observed climate reality " That would be that would be the reality that there hasn't been warming for approximately 2 decades ?

" must all be lying " Well, not all But the climategate e-mails exposed substantial fraud, fabrication, and, yes, outright lies. As well, considerable collusion to quash any contrary commentary.

" are congenital liars " Pure projection on your part.

" inevitably incomplete numerical model " Well, perhaps were said models even remotely accurate they would be accorded more attention and value.

" conspiracy nuts will read all kinds of symbolism " You mean like you're attempting to do here ? As well your compatriot in the opening response comment ?

" just read......." Yes, didn't some well known and well regarded "scientist" suggest just a few short years ago that English children would very soon know no winter ?
peakview
2.2 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2013
Unfortunate mismatch between the headline and the article. They clearly don't know if they have relevant data points or not - they have no idea why one major event is captured by the record and another is not. Much more science needs to be done before these investigations add anything to our knowledge base and we can have a "new view" on anything. Further, why was anyone doing this work amazed that the climate now is vastly different than the Ice Age? From a PhD candidate? This is written more as a puff piece rather than a serious report on scientific findings.
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (20) Jun 07, 2013
I'm going to assume that the two comments above were intended as parodies of hateful, frothing hysteria. In that case, they were rather good -- the only thing missing was a demand to reestablish the Inquisition, so doubters and skeptics could be burned at the stake.

You must be new here.

Vendicar(Decarian,A,B,C,D,E...Zz) regularly and literally calls for the mass extermination (his fave method is the guillotine) of many millions of people whose horrific crime is disagreeing with him. This is a common trait of the left, as evidenced by the 100 million poor bastards who disagreed with others of his political persuasion: Uncle Joe, the Chairman, Fidel, Pol, various Kims, Hugo, Ho, et al. A number of other commenters here agree wholeheartedly with him.

In order to get rid of him and make this a more civil place to chat, I suggest you report every comment like this that he makes, which is most of them, and then use the contact link below to report him to the moderators.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (21) Jun 08, 2013
............ crime is disagreeing with him. This is a common trait of the left.....


It's not disagreeing with him/us - it's disagreeing with science that rankles with us "warmists". The idea that "I know better" than the expert in the field. And the association of the science with "the left" or "socialism". As if that should make any difference if there is a problem that needs fixing. The only socialism involved is the obvious one that it will take "the World" to get it fixed and that would inevitably doom us by "their" logic - as "socialism is more evil and to be resisted above any problem "society" needs to get together to fix. Quite, quite bizarre psychology.
A comment on the pejorative....
I personally have found that its use and an attacking response in general is worse than counterproductive - though I can understand the reflex to post in that manner.
Byron00
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2013
Socialism is beside the point, although it's government funding that has changed climate science from a backwater into a player. Getting on board with climate change has become professionally rewarding in a host of ways, thanks to the taxpayers. Historically, this is the kind of situation that encourages premature closure and the embarrassments that eventually follow from it. As Karl Popper pointed out, Kant created an entire philosophy on the premise that Newton was right. As it turned out, he wasn't right.

The utter lack of skepticism among believers in AGW is striking, as is the sort of attitude toward dissent usually seen with ideological or religious commitments. But empirical knowledge can only be hypothetical, and empirical proofs can only be pragmatic. To see scientific knowledge as truth with a capital T is to misunderstand science fundamentally. At this stage, the nascent field of climate science needs more skeptics and challengers, and fewer ignorant, axe-grinding groupies.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2013
.......To see scientific knowledge as truth with a capital T is to misunderstand science fundamentally........


No one here ( with a scientific mind ) sees AGW theory as "truth". It is just the best thing we have got to it at the moment. And given that the theory says we need to act - then I suggest we should. As why bother having a scientific community to advise us if we ignore it?
While ever observations match the theory then all others must explain them better with a competing theory. It's only a case of the one we have now is the best explanation - by a long way as it happens.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Jun 08, 2013
As why bother having a scientific community to advise us if we ignore it?

1) They have no responsibility, no consequences for being wrong.
2) Govts HAVE run with the advice of the scientific community in the past leading to people being lobotomized, millions murdered in gas chambers (eugenics) and millions more babies killed.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2013
If you track down the paper and read the supplemental graphs, they show temperature has been falling for the last 4000 years as our interglacial comes to an end.
Byron00
1.6 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2013
And I suggest we ought be much more circumspect about demanding wholesale societal change until theory becomes far more convincing that it is now. A theory can be the best we have and still be a bad theory. Phlogiston was once the best theory we had of combustion. The history of science is a parade of best theories that turned out to be wrong.

The climate computer models are replete with errors of specification and measurement, and everybody knows it. No warming for 15 years, so we now see ad hoc speculation about nonlinear change to save the theory. We'll see whether that patch turns out to be valid and useful, but meanwhile the fact is that this stuff is not ready for prime time.

But science progresses, and eventually it will be -- and then, never fear, scientific advice about dealing with climate change will not be ignored, but treated with utmost seriousness. Despite its own pretensions and the commitments of interested followers, climate science simply hasn't earned that yet.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 08, 2013
The climate computer models are replete with errors of specification and measurement, and everybody knows it. No warming for 15 years, so we now see ad hoc speculation about nonlinear change to save the theory. We'll see whether that patch turns out to be valid and useful, but meanwhile the fact is that this stuff is not ready for prime time.


Err, you are aware of the missing Arctic ice? Not just extent but volume. What's causing that? And no, increasing Antarctic sea-ice nowhere near compensates. You are aware of the overlying climate drivers - ENSO, PDO, Solar, Aerosols? These pauses in warming were always expected by the models - the timing not.

Ever heard of the precautionary principle? Do you advocate continuing to burn Carbon until it runs out, or at least until the cost drives economies into melt-down anyway? The sooner we develop renewable alternatives to sooner costs for them will stabilise. It's just a shame this generation will have to pay for its development.
Byron00
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 08, 2013
Global temperatures have gone up and down as long as there's been a globe, nobody denies that. What is at issue is whether human activity is responsible for recent changes, and whether changes in human activities have had, will have, or can have, any significant impact.

Please specify the kinds of data that would convince you to give up the idea of human-caused climate change. What observations would make you decide that you have been wrong about this? What do you see as the refutation conditions for AGW theory?
Byron00
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2013
Runrig, your arguments are riddled with unstated and mistaken assumptions. No form of carbon is ever going to "run out," nor will it drive economies into meltdown. Coal is a dead man walking, not because it's running out (it isn't), but because it's not price competitive with natural gas in the energy markets. We'll never run out of coal, we'll just leave it in the ground. Same with oil. NG will steadily displace much of the oil and gasoline now being burned, and for the same economic reasons, not because oil "running out." As these market-driven transitions occur, energy prices will decline, not rise. Greenhouse gas emissions will also decline, as is already happening.

Listing climate drivers is an exercise of little or no value, unless and until they are accompanied by numeric coefficients that accurately specify their causal impact in isolation, in combination, and in interaction. We are a long way from any such thing.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2013

Please specify the kinds of data that would convince you to give up the idea of human-caused climate change. What observations would make you decide that you have been wrong about this? What do you see as the refutation conditions for AGW theory?


I would want a theory that matches the observed increase in heat in the climate system since the beginning of the industrial era ( global dimming due increased aerosols from same excluded up to the 70's). The theory would need to correlate via physical experiment the needed forcing to produce the observed warming. All other theory I view - cloud albedo, solar, CFC's and a few oddball others have been found wanting. CO2 is the only one that fits, and is proven in the record to match temp in virtual lock-step. This admittedly as a "follower" of warming from another driver - but proving a very close relationship. The Earth in all its processes is in balance and its about time mankind realised that we need to take care.
Byron00
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 08, 2013
Your appeal to physical experiment is on the right track, but not nearly as easy to accomplish as you imply. It's still a pipe dream, but at least it's the correct pipe dream.

In the history of science, the formulation of good theories by observing naturally occurring systems is extremely rare, because natural systems are too complex and hard to specify. Science almost always advances by constructing theories based on the behavior of highly artificial systems that are vastly-simplified versions of reality. Laws of motion would never be discovered from statistical analysis of odd-shaped leaves falling from trees on gusty days. Prediction about such things remains very weak, even now that the laws of motion are known. This is why meteorology has lagged in its predictive capabilities, as well as vulcanology, and every other science that is forced to work with natural systems.

Climate science is squarely in that category. You expect too much of it, and it claims too much for itself.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (21) Jun 09, 2013
Not Parker foolishly said
If you track down the paper and read the supplemental graphs, they show temperature has been falling for the last 4000 years as our interglacial comes to an end.

when the fact is that, not only are temperatures the highest that they've been in the past 4000 years, but that they are rising faster than at any time at since the end of the last ice age 11,300 years ago.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2013
...Prediction about such things remains very weak, even now that the laws of motion are known. This is why meteorology has lagged in its predictive capabilities, as well as vulcanology, and every other science that is forced to work with natural systems.


As a (retired) Meteorologist - I can say your assertion there is wrong.. Weather forecasting has limits in accuracy due to 1) The impossibility of us being able to know its starting conditions with enough accuracy. No amount of radiosonde, satellite MSU data or surface observation will fully capture it. ( what goes in is what comes out ). 2) the inherent complexity and sensitivity to small perturbations in the system, magnifying over time. ( chaos). This is why ensemble forecasts are used in longer-range to gauge probabilities. 3) Computational expense. The need to crunch down to small grid scale, globally and introduce complex parametrizations and model orography correctly.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (21) Jun 09, 2013
Byron00 made the foolish claim that there has been
No warming for 15 years

Perhaps he can explain why HADCRUT data, data that the denialists have been so fond of citing, not only fail to support his claim, but actually show a slight warming trend from 1998 to present.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013
deepsand
4 / 5 (20) Jun 09, 2013
Byron00 opined that
The climate computer models are replete with errors of specification and measurement, and everybody knows it.

How does he square that with this?

Global warming predictions prove accurate
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2013

Listing climate drivers is an exercise of little or no value, unless and until they are accompanied by numeric coefficients that accurately specify their causal impact in isolation, in combination, and in interaction. We are a long way from any such thing.


It is an exercise of value in pointing out that the "pause" in (atmospheric) warming can/is explained by such overlying drivers ( a point that needs to continually made ). CO2 driven warming was never going to march on at the same rate inexorably without such wiggles over periods of up to a couple of decades. The PDO cycle itself is 20-30 years. The sun has an 11 year cycle and we are now coming ( it seems ) into a further overlying minimum of activity ( Gliessberg cycle ). This encouraging colder NH winters in places away from the Arctic ( esp Europe ). Aerosols - Rising economic activity in China is producing a lot of pollution.

I repeat the exercise is to highlight the ignorance of "some" deniers.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (22) Jun 09, 2013
EdwdLny muttered the following.
" observed climate reality " That would be that would be the reality that there hasn't been warming for approximately 2 decades?

Guess he missed this.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

" must all be lying " Well, not all But the climategate e-mails exposed substantial fraud, fabrication, and, yes, outright lies. As well, considerable collusion to quash any contrary commentary.

A tempest in a tea pot that is immaterial to the facts on the ground.

" inevitably incomplete numerical model " Well, perhaps were said models even remotely accurate they would be accorded more attention and value.

He obviously missed this as well.

http://www.guardi...-warming

If he in fact did not miss either of the above, then he can not claim simple ignorance as being the reason for his making false statements.
freeiam
1.8 / 5 (18) Jun 09, 2013
It's only a case of the one we have now is the best explanation - by a long way as it happens.

It isn't the only explanation, according to other climate scientists black carbon accounts for almost half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius warming found at the moment. According to other climate scientists levels HFC's are the only GHG that fit the data perfectly.
And one big discrepancy of CO2 with the current data is the lack of warming ( maybe even cooling) measured the last 5 years; so no, the current models featuring CO2 as main culprit do not fit the data perfectly.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2013
It isn't the only explanation, according to other climate scientists black carbon accounts for almost half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius warming found at the moment. According to other climate scientists levels HFC's are the only GHG that fit the data perfectly.
And one big discrepancy of CO2 with the current data is the lack of warming ( maybe even cooling) measured the last 5 years; so no, the current models featuring CO2 as main culprit do not fit the data perfectly.


Please read the thread on the "theory of CFC's causing GW", particularly my posts - you will quitye obvoiusly learn something re the weak ( ~13%) contribution CFC's/HFC's make to GW out of all mankinds GHG emmisions. There is only a (recent) correlation - not a causation link.
I shall not go into the so called "cooling" you cite - this site being littered to explanations as to why any scientifically minded person would not expect it to. I did not say that CO2 was a "perfect" fit - just that it is by far the best.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2013
error
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (11) Jun 09, 2013
Hmmm. Where is the source code in the original paper cited by the news article cited posters above? I think I'll withhold judgment either way until I see the original source materials used in compiling the paper.

On the matter of the Borneo stalagmites...very cool. I look forward to reading more.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 09, 2013
freeiam repeats the typical denialist falsehood by claiming that
And one big discrepancy of CO2 with the current data is the lack of warming ( maybe even cooling) measured the last 5 years

Had he bothered to read the thread before speaking, he would have learned the the denialists' favorite source for cherry picked data actually shows a warming trend over the past 5.5 years.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 09, 2013
freeiam also obviously just parroted the following denialist claim.
And one big discrepancy of CO2 with the current data is ... the current models featuring CO2 as main culprit do not fit the data perfectly.

Had he done but a modicum of independent research he might have learned that Global warming predictions prove accurate.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 10, 2013
freeiam also parroted this denialist nonsense.
... according to other climate scientists black carbon accounts for almost half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius warming found at the moment.

Clearly neither he nor his kind understand that the net effect of atmospheric particulates, including soot, is to decrease the transmissivity of the atmosphere to sun light, thus resulting in surface cooling, a phenomenon known as global dimming, which is distinctly different from radiative forcing.

It is only when soot is deposited on highly reflective surfaces, such as snow and white ice, such that the albedo of said surface is reduced, does it result in surface warming.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2013
freeiam repeats the typical denialist falsehood by claiming that
Had he bothered to read the thread before speaking, he would have learned the the denialists' favorite source for cherry picked data actually shows a warming trend over the past 5.5 years.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013


Wow! So now AGW religionists are saying only five years of data is enough to demonstrate a rising trend? What happened to the distinctions between weather and climate that they always touted should be no less than 10 years to be climate? Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?

3.5 years of climate:
http://www.woodfo...rom:2009

10.5 years of climate:
http://www.woodfo...rom:2002

For the record, I still remain on the fence. I still want to see source code.
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?


The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

deepsand
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2013
editing error on the part of forum platform
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (19) Jun 10, 2013
So now AGW religionists are saying only five years of data is enough to demonstrate a rising trend? What happened to the distinctions between weather and climate that they always touted should be no less than 10 years to be climate? Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?

3.5 years of climate:
http://www.woodfo...rom:2009

10.5 years of climate:
http://www.woodfo...rom:2002

Don't' be absurd. I was simply pointing out that the cherry-picked data fondly & repeatedly trotted out by the denialists does not support their claim re. no warming/cooling over the past 5 years.

And, your cherry-picked data are immaterial to the long term trend.

HADCRUT4GL: 1898-2013

I still want to see source code.

Source code? What source code?
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2013
Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?


The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013



That's all well and good but as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions. Well, that is until the climate sciences textbooks are rewritten to eliminate the proper definition. :-)
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2013
So now AGW religionists are saying only five years of data is enough to demonstrate a rising trend? What happened to the distinctions between weather and climate that they always touted should be no less than 10 years to be climate? Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?

3.5 years of climate:
http://www.woodfo...rom:2009

I still want to see source code.

Source code? What source code?


No cherry picking on my part. Take it however you want, though. And I would expect the long-term trend from 1895 to the present to show warming. That period directly followed the LIA and the 1816 "Year without a summer." So, it is pretty obvious that warming should have occurred during the period following. That is a "no-brainer." Any trend from that time forward would have been a warming trend. Remember that postulated man made warming would not occur until about 1950 or so, so anything before 1950 is irrelevant.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2013
cont....

Of course, there already was a clearly established warming trend already in place before 1950, so, maybe it is relevant after all, but not necessarily so far as anthropogenic GHGs are concerned.

Source code? Why, the code used to crunch the numbers contained within the previous studies to reach the conclusions of the current one, of course. It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. Some publications have already moved that way. All of them should. Do you agree or disagree?
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 10, 2013
Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

That's all well and good but as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions. Well, that is until the climate sciences textbooks are rewritten to eliminate the proper definition. :-)

If you had any real understanding of the subject, you'd not be engaging in such semantical games.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 10, 2013
No cherry picking on my part. Take it however you want, though. And I would expect the long-term trend from 1895 to the present to show warming. That period directly followed the LIA and the 1816 "Year without a summer." So, it is pretty obvious that warming should have occurred during the period following. That is a "no-brainer." Any trend from that time forward would have been a warming trend. Remember that postulated man made warming would not occur until about 1950 or so, so anything before 1950 is irrelevant.

Of course it's cherry picking. Pretending otherwise serves no purpose.

And, no, it not inevitable that temperatures should have risen as they have simply because you think it to be so. Your making such a specious claim demonstrates that you are quite ill equipped for discussing the matter at hand.
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (20) Jun 10, 2013
Source code? Why, the code used to crunch the numbers contained within the previous studies to reach the conclusions of the current one, of course. It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. Some publications have already moved that way. All of them should. Do you agree or disagree?

Now you're really grasping at straws.

You're not a skeptic, but an habitual naysayer.
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2013
@Skepticus_Rex

That's all well and good but as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions.


What "official definition"?

What makes it the "official" definition?

Can you provide a link?

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013
The TROLL @Skepticus_Rex
Source code? Why, the code used to crunch the numbers contained within the previous studies to reach the conclusions of the current one, of course. It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. Some publications have already moved that way


Well, if your "CODE" is so good, why don't you show us your's?
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2013
Official definitions? Well, there is the dictionary and there are the textbooks. Go and read.

My code is irrelevant since I am not the one making claims one way or the other. I am a fence-sitter and will remain so until one side or the other is more convincing and don't have to use 'fudge factors' and 'exaggeration factors' in their code to make a point.

To repeat: It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. Some publications have already moved that way. All of them should. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2013

To repeat: It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. .....and don't have to use 'fudge factors' and 'exaggeration factors' in their code to make a point.


Do you mean like this ?
http://www.giss.n.../modelE/

Oh, BTW: fudge factors, as you call them, are known as parametrizations in climate/weather modelling and are a short-cut to simulating a process whereby to do the full physics in the code would be too computationally expensive.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2013
When fudge factors are used to hide declines or even to make them into vertically inclining trends, then they become a serious problem. Exaggeration factors are worse. For instance, IPCC used exaggeration factors of between 2 and 4 in their work and failed to tell the public about the fact that they used them. One of the scientists involved in reviewing the work called them on their use of such factors. They still published the "facts" anyway.

Worse examples are such as when the ARGO network showed declines in ocean temperatures across the board, to the director of the project's chagrin. Not long after the trends continued, the network of sensors suddenly wound up with materials errors.

To repeat: It should be mandatory to include such code and working figures in scientific papers as a prerequisite to publication. Some publications have already moved that way. All of them should. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2013
Official definitions? Well, there is the dictionary


http://www.thefre.../climate

As you can see there is no official or standard dictionary definition.

and there are the textbooks


Textbooks do not define or create official or standard definitions, they are defined by international agreement. The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933. Obviously there was no pro or anti AGW bias back then so it would be egregious to claim that it was chosen to favour one side or the other.

http://www.wmo.in..._I_E.pdf

Go and read.


I have read
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2013
When fudge factors are used to hide declines or even to make them into vertically inclining trends, then they become a serious problem. Exaggeration factors are worse. For instance, IPCC used exaggeration factors of between 2 and 4 in their work and failed to tell the public about the fact that they used them. One of the scientists involved in reviewing the work called them on their use of such factors. They still published the "facts" anyway.


If you are talking about temp data then you could collect the data yourself and crunch it. And see if it meets your expectation. The koch's attempt at proving the conspiracy failed when the BEST study came out ( surprise ) just as the others.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2013
SteveS,

I noticed that not one of those entries was from a scientifically-based dictionary. Of course, I suppose that is my fault for not specifying in the above post. As to your reference, you are aware that those standard definitions are for determining of "climatological standard normals", are you not? Little bit different and for somewhat different purposes. But, you already knew that--at least I assume that you did. :-)

runrig,

The BEST study is 1) preliminary, and 2) not global as of yet, being only land-based data until they finish the rest. Even with other data an upward trend can be seen in land-based measurements while sea-based measurements have tended downward in places. I would not expect BEST to do anything but as it has.

In any case, reliance on that dataset is foolhardy at best (even though many are doing so even now). In addition, any data that uses infilling from non-existent stations and extrapolation from existing ones is inherently unreliable at best.
deepsand
3.9 / 5 (18) Jun 12, 2013
I am a fence-sitter and will remain so until one side or the other is more convincing and don't have to use 'fudge factors' and 'exaggeration factors' in their code to make a point.

You can call yourself a "fence-sitter," but, the fact is that by denying the existence of substantial warming over the past century you are, at the very least, a trend skeptic.

But, you also argue against AGW, which would make you an attribution skeptic.

Now, holding both of these two positions is illogical, a one cannot be an attribution skeptic without first accepting the existence of a trend.

The fact is that you are a run-of-the-mill denialist who tries to wear both hats simply because you do not understand the matter but do not like the consequences that AGW will inevitable bring.
Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2013
Official definitions? Well, there is the dictionary and there are the textbooks. Go and read.

My code is irrelevant since I am not the one making claims one way or the other. I am a fence-sitter and will remain so until one side or the other is more convincing and don't have to use 'fudge factors' and 'exaggeration factors' in their code to make a point.

A serving of waffle
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2013
Give me something better to prove its existence and I might move to that side. In any case, we'll see if Latif ("Mr. Global Warming") was right. He postulated a cooling trend for up to two decades before temps start going up again. Other than waiting to see if he was right, I want to see something better than "preliminary" data and hiding of declines. I want to see something original rather than either self-referential or excessive derivation and intellectual bandwagoning. So far, neither side really has provided that so I remain skeptical. And, yes, if there "ain't" more tangible proof then I will speak out about that--like it or not.

Want me to speak in a positive manner about the reality of AGW? Give me something more tangible than belief. If I want a belief system I'll get religion. Aside from that I want hard facts that are not the result of any kind of fudged data, unstable source code, preliminary, or data infilled from existent stations to non-existent extrapolations.
Howhot
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2013
Want me to speak in a positive manner about the reality of AGW?
Everyone could careless because you *opinion* on the subject is crap.

Give me something more tangible than belief. If I want a belief system I'll get religion. Aside from that I want hard facts that are not the result of any kind of fudged data, unstable source code, preliminary, or data infilled from existent stations to non-existent extrapolations
.
Why ask stupid things when you already know your an idiot. This is not personal. But you have to be a pretty dim bulb to twist your argument the way you do. So just fess up and come out of the closet. You know your a denier.

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2013
My opinion is only crap to those who've got the AGW religion. And, these are serious things to ask for. If I am going to believe something I want to see raw, unadulterated data to justify that belief. I jump on a bandwagon for no one. You do. I won't. Anyone who says that all we need to prove something sufficiently is a lot of people all parroting deficient data is selling something. Get over it, if you can.
deepsand
3.9 / 5 (19) Jun 13, 2013
My opinion is only crap to those who've got the AGW religion. And, these are serious things to ask for. If I am going to believe something I want to see raw, unadulterated data to justify that belief. I jump on a bandwagon for no one. You do. I won't. Anyone who says that all we need to prove something sufficiently is a lot of people all parroting deficient data is selling something. Get over it, if you can.

You obviously do not understand the underlying Physics involved.

Get over it.
Howhot
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
AGW is only a religion in the light of a very dim bulb dude; yours. AGW is simply observations of the man-made portions of the chemical make-up of the atmosphere. Its that simple. If you can't handle that truth, then may I suggest reading something other than Sean Hangity, or the propaganda websites paid for by the Heartland institute.

I want to see raw, unadulterated data to justify that belief.
You wouldn't believe it if I showed it to you, but I'll show you mine when you show me yours! Of course you don't have anything to show do you rexy boy? And what I have isn't a secret that you can find in any reputable issue of "Nature" or "Science" or websites like Noaa.gov

Get over it, if you can.
I suggest you "get over it" and quit being an ASS. Your out in the deniers deficient zone.
VendicarE
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2013
"My opinion is only crap" - SkepticalTard

Correct.
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
Skepticus_Rex

I noticed that not one of those entries was from a scientifically-based dictionary.


Look again

climate
The general or average weather conditions of a certain region, including temperature, rainfall, and wind.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

As to your reference, you are aware that those standard definitions are for determining of "climatological standard normals"


My reference was to the World Meteorological Organization Technical Regulations. Climate normals as opposed to climatological standard normals are computed for a uniform and relatively long period comprising of at least three consecutive ten-year periods.

That's all well and good but as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions.


Can you provide links in support of this statement.
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
Rexy, I agree with Vendi, your opinion is only crap. Good one Vendi.
VendicarE
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
"Give me something better to prove its existence" - SkeptieTard

Science has no obligation to prove anything to the willfully ignorant.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2013
Skepticus_Rex

Can you provide links in support of this statement.


Not at the moment. I hadn't thought to scour the Internet, as though everything on the Internet can be trusted implicitly. I got the information from printed texts, which I do not have with me at the moment. Sadly, it is going to be a while before I can get back there to look through them again.

In the meantime, it might interest you to note that, even though the WMO FAQ states that the classical period of time is 30 years, it also contains the following text (considerably more flexible than my information) preceding that:

"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years...."
http://www.wmo.in....html#q1

By the way, that science dictionary you quoted isn't very detailed, is it?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2013
Not at the moment. I hadn't thought to scour the Internet, as though everything on the Internet can be trusted implicitly. I got the information from printed texts, which I do not have with me at the moment.


That's all well and good but as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions. Well, that is until the climate sciences textbooks are rewritten to eliminate the proper definition


Well it's quite obvious what has happened, you have a great opportunity here. When you find that text you can use it to prove that climate scientists are the sort of lowlifes that will make up facts just to score a point in a discussion and then change all references on the internet to cover up their dishonesty.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2013
Did you by chance catch the statement of the WMO in their FAQ on the ranges that count? You know, the one that contains the text that reads:

"Climate...is...more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years...."

So, yes, even by these standards defined by the WMO, three years also is climate. Now, see how easy that was?
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2013
"Climate...is...more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years...."

So, yes, even by these standards defined by the WMO, three years also is climate. Now, see how easy that was?

Just where does it say that three years is indicative of a long term trend, which is the subject at hand?

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2013
Did I say that three years is a long-term trend? Nope. I said that even three years is climate. The WMO (until they change the FAQ) agrees. Heck, according to them even a period of several months also is climate.

100,000 years certainly is a long term trend, if there were a trend. There have been very abrupt trends within that long term. With such abrupt changes before man began to influence his surroundings very much, one cannot say that abrupt changes today are unprecedented.

Poor land use management and solar tech can do far worse to the environment than CO2 molecules ever could in the amounts we see in the atmosphere, IPCC exaggeration factors notwithstanding. I have monitored CO2 levels for years. I also have done experiments with it. It does not do what the IPCC claims it does in the amounts that are there. To get a 1 degree to 2 degrees C increase in ambient temperature, you need to have well over 4,000 ppm CO2. We have barely just reached just under 400 ppm average.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2013
I also have done experiments with it. It does not do what the IPCC claims it does in the amounts that are there. To get a 1 degree to 2 degrees C increase in ambient temperature, you need to have well over 4,000 ppm CO2. We have barely just reached just under 400 ppm average.


Can you point me to confirmation of your claim? All the science I have researched contradicts your assertion.
You are coupling your CO2 increase with a consequent absolute humidity increase? - as WV relative humidity would be conserved in a warming atmosphere.
Hence there will be an amplification feed-back.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2013
I also have done experiments with it. It does not do what the IPCC claims it does in the amounts that are there. To get a 1 degree to 2 degrees C increase in ambient temperature, you need to have well over 4,000 ppm CO2. We have barely just reached just under 400 ppm average


Can you please, give us the URL for your refereed report? Thank you in advance.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2013
Did I say that three years is a long-term trend? Nope.

Since the trend is the issue, you then have nothing to offer of value.

I also have done experiments with it. It does not do what the IPCC claims it does in the amounts that are there. To get a 1 degree to 2 degrees C increase in ambient temperature, you need to have well over 4,000 ppm CO2.

Proof required.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2013
Why not do the experimentation for yourselves? I have posted a couple examples of such around on this website somewhere, and others of my acquaintances have done so elsewhere on the Net.

In any case, the experiments had multiple controls, one set done with just the gas and the other with varying levels of humidity. You can use standard glass containers that can be sealed. To do the experiments with even more accuracy you will need to use IR transparent glass.

The gist of the experiments involved CO2 levels at ambient, 600 ppm, 4,000 ppm, 15,000 ppm, and pure CO2. Make sure you have temperature probes and heat lamps calibrated as equivalent output. In the absence of heat lamps you can use sunlight.

Each sealed container will need two temperature probes, for a total of ten; one placed outside and the other places inside. The external temperature probes are used to help as controls to the internal probes.

Now, construct the experiment based upon the above and record results. :)
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2013
Why not do the experimentation for yourselves? I have posted a couple examples of such around on this website somewhere, and others of my acquaintances have done so elsewhere on the Net.


You must be aware that very, very few will be able to do as you suggest. Why not let us into the results you obtained?
The results that confound accepted radiative physics.
You obviously see that the Emperor's naked. Whilst all other Climate scientists cannot.
Please let us bask in the light of your magnificence.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2013
Very, very few will be able to afford to use IR transparent glass, yes. Well, that is unless you work for a laboratory and scientifically-based facility that can afford it. But, you don't have to use IR transparent glass.

You don't have to use expensive temperature probes, either. That is the beauty of it. You can even use standard thermometers and standard glass jars with lids that seal. It is a variant of the example used to teach kids about the effects of CO2 in physics classes. You still need to have a CO2 probe to measure amounts of CO2 but these have gotten relatively inexpensive. But, even then it is not absolutely integral to the experiment.

Just fill the jars and seal them in differing locations. Ambient air from outside; 600 ppm or higher from inside your home; 2,200 to 5,000 ppm from inside an occupied classroom; 15,000-plus ppm from burning matches tossed into the jar; relatively pure CO2 from dry ice in jar until most air is gone. The results will surprise you.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2013
The results will surprise you.

The only thing that should surprise anyone is your inability to grasp the fact that your experiments do not emulate the system in question.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2013
And computer models _really_ do?!? Religion at its finest...

Do the experiment for yourself according to your ability to afford it. The temps should do nothing but go up 1 to 2 C at double the CO2 of ambient--or so conventional wisdom tells us. But the results tell us something transcending conventional wisdom. Go ahead. You have nothing to fear but fear itself. :-)
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2013
To repeat, your experiments do NOT emulate the system in question.

Pretending otherwise puts the lie to your claim of understanding the underlying Physics.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2013
The underlying physics states that a doubling of CO2 should produce an increase of between 1 and 2 degrees C, or in a worst case scenario, 4. Computer models also do not completely emulate the system. To pretend otherwise is a lie of biblical proportions. Otherwise, why keep refining them, after all?

But the jar experiment is done all over the world to teach the youngsters the nastiness of CO2 to the planet and what it can do in terms of increases of temperature. The experiment expands upon that and puts a number of controls in place. It is so much better than the one used to turn impressionable schoolboys and schoolgirls to the new world religion.

When God is dead climate science fills the void in the heart. Isn't it wonderful? Praise be to the Hockey Stick! But, the true beauty of the revised experiment lies in the fact that it is expandable according to ability to afford. One can add parameters of varying kinds to make it closer to empirical reality. Do the experiment....
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2013
Skepticus: You say: "When God is dead climate science fills the void in the heart. Isn't it wonderful? Praise be to the Hockey Stick! But, the true beauty of the revised experiment lies in the fact that it is expandable according to ability to afford. One can add parameters of varying kinds to make it closer to empirical reality. Do the experiment..."

Can you please give us a writeup of the experiment so we can duplicate it? As you have said in the past, each experiment should be duplicated to be accepted. Please give us all of the details so we can run your experiment. Thank you in advance. Please do not leave out any details.
SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2013
Wow! So now AGW religionists are saying only five years of data is enough to demonstrate a rising trend? What happened to the distinctions between weather and climate that they always touted should be no less than 10 years to be climate? Are they actually moving closer to the actual, original definitions? Or, only when it suits them?
Skepticus_Rex Jun 10, 2013


..as low as three years counts as climate in the official definitions
Skepticus_Rex Jun 10, 2013


Just where does it say that three years is indicative of a long term trend, which is the subject at hand?
deepsand Jun 14, 2013


Did I say that three years is a long-term trend? Nope.
Skepticus_Rex Jun 14, 2013


Not in so many words, but you did say it.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2013
The underlying physics states that a doubling of CO2 should produce an increase of between 1 and 2 degrees C, or in a worst case scenario, 4. Computer models also do not completely emulate the system. To pretend otherwise is a lie of biblical proportions. Otherwise, why keep refining them, after all?....


Nothing can completely emulate the climate system while it lives as bits/bytes in a supercomputer. Get real. It is just the best way possible of doing it that we have. You know. Science as it is in this technological age - and the point is precisely that. Science strives to know things better.
Also, as I posted earlier your "experiment" does not emulate the most potent feed-back. That is the increase in absolute humidity as CO2 raises temp. To do that your jars would have to have WV added incrementally with rising temp.
Also, since you wont provide a general answer - I will ask a specific.
Are you denying any sort of GHE effect from CO2?
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2013
To repeat, Skepticus_Rex, your experiments do NOT emulate the system in question.

Your continuing to evade that fact is most telling.

Hint: At the very least, it is missing one of the three necessary components of a system experiencing radiative forcing.