EnviroLink Forum

"...‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... pollution/

Linked in the article:

"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... eptic.html

"Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... hange-mind

Hi peeps, strange turn of events when a drilling team in 2008 found this when drilling the east and west of antarctica



When drilling through the floating ice shelf to the sea bed a couple of hundred metres below to depths of approx 1300 metres, and it clearly shows we are not at the average base of the trough (or peak to a warmer climate in Antarctica). Meaning as they claim from the investigation of the core that CO2 levels, Calcium and Magnesium in the water was higher than today, and proof the sea ice has been gone over 50 times in the last 3 million years alone and more. I am talking about the 0 year on the graphs and the way the previous low ice levels (warmer climates in antarctica) have been lower than today, in fact gone meaning, it was warmer than today and reading around the other dates they and this shows more clearly on the 0-1.5 million year graph on the bottom.

A link to the original paper would be nice so the context and the quality of the work could be known.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

So you haven't heard of the ANDRILL project where they got samples in the 2006-2008 seasons in east and west antarctica, to improve on and analyse the results of the earlier cores from 1996 with modern sampling techniques and an improved resolution of the cores down to 2mm/1000 years instead of the 2cm/1000 years of sedimentation?

You saying that a graph from a paper and the team of 5 or 6 nations that came up with an improved drilling technique to get to the sea bed 800-900 metres beneath the pack ice that spent millions of dollars drilling 1300 metres or more and had experts in the fields of ice and sediment cores, geology, digital paeleoclimate modelling, various biological fields and more are going to turn out something of poor quality?

The original paper can be found on the Canterbury University website, along with the others that only talk about 3-5 million years ago, 17-24 million years ago and 30-50 million years ago and it was a surprise to find a single graph that had information up to present in as much detail after reading all of them.

http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/docume ... 0Sheet.pdf

"Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that temperatures were between 2-5ºC higher than today in recent past interglacials (Jansen et al. 2007). This is matched by biological evidence in the lake sediment record in Antarctica (Hodgson et al. 2006c). At the same time, global sea levels were 4-6 m higher than today’s (Jansen et al. 2007)"

http://www.mna.it/english/Publications/ ... tology.pdf

Yet they do go on to say that CO2 levels haven't been as high since 17 million years ago, yet still confirm that the sea ice sheet has vanished 50-60 times in 5 million years and that we are not as warm as it was then in the region.

There is also a 2008 financial review paper on the ANDRILL website that talks about them seeing the medieval warm period and the little ice age present in the sediment layer from Antarctica and trying to get more money for more students to study it.

No, it is just easier and more appropriate for you to provide the links to support your claims instead of everyone else trying to guess your references.



No, I am saying that without some reference base we cannot have any idea of the quality of the data or the context of the presentation.



And that is why you should provide your links so someone would not have to try to find it in the papers possible.



No, that quote is not from either paper's link.

That paper does have some interesting information though.

Data from the core indicate the advance and retreat of WAIS numerous times in the response to the climate changes chiefly driven by Milakovich cycles (changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble of axis, which differes the amount of solar radiation). Approximately four million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 3°C warmer than present and Co2 levels were 400 parts per million, WAIS was mostly submerged by ocean. (Naish et al, 2009).

<snip>

Results from ANDRILL show that WAIS had collapsed in the past when the temperature is 3°C warmer than today and CO₂ concentrations are 400ppm (Naish et al, 2009). This is most likely going to occur again by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007). Results from incorporating ANDRILL’s data into prediction models show similar collapses of the WAIS and 7 metre increases in sea levels (Pollard & DeConto, 2009). Collapses of the WAIS have been abrupt (~<500 years) in the past, thus could be just as abrupt today, but large uncertainties still remain (Naish et al., 2009). The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time.



No such references in these papers either. Two quotes unsupported by the links do not do very much to make anything clear.



And again no links?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

That is a bombshell sea levels expected to by rise by 7 meters with co2 levels at 400 ppm. We will be exceed that CO2 level in a just a few years !
The figure for June 2012 is 395.77ppm

http://co2now.org/

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

OK, This was a typo, I meant to say "Also in the 2008 financial review" they are talking about the medieval warm period and little ice age showing up, even though they are meant to be northern hemisphere only. By also I mean the review which is a .doc I linked to above, again whisky and internet don't mix.

Now I understand how special you are I will make sure everything is linked correctly in future, but you aren't that special that I will give you the page and paragraph.



Warmair, yes but with lower CO2 levels the sea level has been just as high, if not slightly higher at around the 20 metre mark and we have had an ice free antarctica. Going the other way we have had 120 metre lower seas around antarctica and the CO2 levels for this time are not discussed in as much detail from any of their work. They focus papers on specific time frames, such as 30-50 million years ago, 17-24 and 3-5, yet the core is from present, 2007/8 back to 40 million years ago and we can only hope they have spent as much effort analysing all the core else it would be a waste of money.

So around July of 2014 the world average CO2 PPM will be 400.
"2009). The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time.[/i]"
WHILE WE STILL HAVE THE TIME, and all denialism has done is waste that time. That was the same year tundra scientists warned that we were at the tipping point of the tundra methane self release positive feedback loop.
I call it human inertia to change. Or maybe more like that goat breed that stiffens up when frightened and falls over.
From Wayne's post:
"That paper does have some interesting information though."

"'Data from the core indicate the advance and retreat of WAIS numerous times in the response to the climate changes chiefly driven by Milakovich cycles (changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble of axis, which differes the amount of solar radiation). Approximately four million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 3°C warmer than present and Co2 levels were 400 parts per million, WAIS was mostly submerged by ocean. (Naish et al, 2009).

<snip>

Results from ANDRILL show that WAIS had collapsed in the past when the temperature is 3°C warmer than today and CO₂ concentrations are 400ppm (Naish et al, 2009). This is most likely going to occur again by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007). Results from incorporating ANDRILL’s data into prediction models show similar collapses of the WAIS and 7 metre increases in sea levels (Pollard & DeConto, 2009). Collapses of the WAIS have been abrupt (~<500 years) in the past, thus could be just as abrupt today, but large uncertainties still remain (Naish et al., 2009). The direct evidence of WAIS stability from the ANDRILL cores shows that it is highly sensitive to climate warming, so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time.'"
I guess you missed that, spot.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Someone suspects illdoings with the temperature records, someone looks into it and finds that mainstream science was right all the time, someone changes their mind. I don't think we should be too cynical about this, sometimes admitting that your wrong takes real courage.

As for Spongebobs point; it's fascinating that he should choose this thread to post about it, of course we only have his word for what this study has discovered, I was hopeing it was going to be an alien spaceship, but it turns out we have nothing to worry about from climate change. Thanks Spongebob.

FWIW, from 2010, a comment from one of the co-chief scientists at the end of this article:

"Geologists Drill into Antarctica and Find Troubling Signs for Ice Sheets' Future"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ice-sheets

Has this been peer reviwed or is it an independant study?

This one is also an independant study (although done by serious scientists and submitted for publication);

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/p ... more-68286

Apologies for drunk post last night and missing link. I did make another post before I finished my 25 year old bottle of balvenie and went to bed but the mods seem not to have accepted it, don't think I was as rude as Wayne but am new posting here even though been reading the forum for a while and maybe that level of banter is not allowed. If you did think I was too rude for Wayne then I apologise other mods but arrogance isn't pretty in any field of work and while his heart is in the right place he does have a certain air about him that he thinks he is better than everyone else have seen it before over the last 8ish years on other forums.

The first link is the one that links to the paper with the graph Wayne, the original second link was wrong and apologise for that as was drunk and made a mistake when going through the papers but I will dig it out later, although it is a draft 2008 or 2009 review for chapter 3 titled "Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period" if that helps in the interim of me shaking my hangover.


Yes Spot interesting indeed but one would think you are trying to connect dots to something and looking to deeply at it without any proof of why, or who and I believe that is in essence a breach of my human rights, seeing as every person is meant to be seen as innocent till proven guilty and not guilty of something from the start per say, can see your train of thought already without any explanation on my part as to why I posted this on this thread, when it would have been more apt on the greenland one, seeing as they are doing a similair project there with a similair drill. I take it I must be a climate denier because I posted an original research project that not only have none of the "well read" members of the forum not even heard about but it shows serious issues surrounding the level of ice loss in previous interglacials and yet we haven't even reached the peak temperature being 3-5C higher than today(or average Ice loss being far greater) or reached the 20+ metres higher sea levels than today in the region.

Warmair, the level of 7m isn't a lot in antarctica as the modelling from the drill sites claim it is up to 26 metres higher than today at some points over the last 1.5 million years, yet at the time the CO2 levels are lower, go figure.


Johnny, yes it leaves questions with CO2 but they are leaving you with the connection to one thing from all the informtaion there is available from the whole project. Kind of like the way all the papers so far have concentrated about 3-5 million years ago, 17-24 and 30-50 and missed out bits like the ice loss was greater in all but 2 of the last 1.5 million years of interglacials and in most cases far greater than now with lower CO2 levels.

Tim by now it would be peer reviewed by serious scientists in the relevant fields and is a very complex piece of work showing many things other than CO2 levels.

My mistake for not being able to read your mind perhaps?



I suppose the question then remains as to whether it was in the final paper or not.



Not sure what you are trying to say here, but a graph can be pretty and have no real data so the quality of the source is always a concern. I have seen far too many graphs generated by CO2 Science or the like "based" on a paper but not actually in the paper quoted.



So if I post a graph with no reference to the source, you are saying you can find that source in seconds? That would be impressive I am sure.



So you assume something that is not in the papers or just some conspiracy theory or what?

Maybe it is related to this statement:

Data from the core indicate the advance and retreat of WAIS numerous times in the response to the climate changes chiefly driven by Milakovich cycles (changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble of axis, which differes the amount of solar radiation).

[/quote]

OK, This was a typo, I meant to say "Also in the 2008 financial review" they are talking about the medieval warm period and little ice age showing up, even though they are meant to be northern hemisphere only. By also I mean the review which is a .doc I linked to above, again whisky and internet don't mix.[/quote]

It seems not



Yes, imagine not knowing when you have made an alcohol induced typo or bad link on my own.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I believe both now apply actually. The study was funded by the skeptic groups an undertaken by a skeptic, the data was released prior to publication, but I believe has now been peer reviewed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/



Anthony was all in favor of the BEST study until it did not agree with his views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_E ... emperature

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Isn't this where you should be making it clear you are talking about the paper Tim discussed because as it stands it does give the impression you are talking about the ANDRILL project being funded by sceptics until you open the link?

We all make mistakes Wayne, I see you are human after all

Am glad you couldn't read my mind last night, a quarter of a bottle of whisky from 1974 to finish the night messed it up so much I couldn't even understand it as is clear from the wrong link for the second quote, last time I finish a weekend of celebrations like that for a while.

I am sure if you look at the final review paper that is available on the andrill.org site you will see it is in the paper, along with the remarks they have found evidence of the medieval warm period and little ice age in the cores, in the southern most part of the southern hemisphere, would have thought it.

Yes graphs can be, believe any scientist or wanna be statistician can make graphs represent what they want, it is only when you come to a representation of the raw data like the one shown in my op that it is hard to dispute.

Yes it is related to that statement but even that statement does not cover the details of why it is ice free with lower CO2 levels, and it is also a shame that emotional attachments have been placed around the CO2 links to sea level and ice loss such as the one johnny pointed out as his worry.

I know how special I am Wayne, especially when a weekend of alcohol and fine dining is involved, I am just humbled that there are others out there that are more special than me

So lets stop with the bashing of the new poster and look at the paper (and all the research behind it) and the reason I felt it important after all this time reading this forum and not joining to post this piece of research before but posted it in this thread.

The Koch brothers who have a reputation for distorting the truth have had a bad time lately with the release of what could only be classed as internal (as in within funders of the org) letters, memos and papers. They have clearly made their stand in the camp of supporting the industries that are destroying the planet and getting away with it and now they change their point of view. I am not and never would dispute CO2 is rising, or temperatures for that matter and that humans definately have a role to play in it, but it is the sensitivity of the link I have always been concerned about, even after reading many atmospheric physics and chemistry based papers that tried to show how much of a link there is.

Now I have known about this research and not discussed it for many years (end of 2008 approx for knowing about ANDRILL and what they were trying to achieve and followed the release of papers since with very little about them discussed in the mainstream AGW debate) of being involved in discussions on the net because I have seen how people that think they are trained scientists get blinkered to certain aspects of the overall picture. Yet the graph on the op clearly shows less ice than present, and the research goes into the types of diatoms etc. in the ocean and how they are only able to survive in the region due to certain temperature and calcium/magnesium ranges, if you look at the overall research you can clearly see temperatures have been higher than today because certain species have thrived there and this is confirmed by changes in the density of the sediment layers, the warmer it gets the finer the clay like deposits, then there is a point before it get too cold with the ice pack actually touching the sea bed where the sediment layer is much coarser.

Now as Johnny picked out of a very small piece of this work "CO2 levels have been 400ppm and temperatures 3-5C warmer" yet they have been 3-5C warmer without such levels of CO2, else if they had the evidence for it they would have used it in much the same way the emotional statements have been added and highlighted at certain points in the reports, such as "so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time." that is a conclusive statement with emotional attachment, not something that should have been in the report body and there are a few of them that throw the work off kilter a little.

Now as spot tried to say we only have my word for what this study has discovered, which when you look at it from the point of view that you hadn't heard about it before is fair enough, but the research and data speak for themselves and the graph in the op is very clear, all interglacials with less ice cover over the drilling points in the sea bed beneath the current ice sheet and we are still wamring, the ice sheet is still retreating and we are only in the downward slope, we haven't reached the 10-20 thousand years of relatively stable warmer temperatures (less sea ice) that all the interglacials have.