Tucson Citizen.com
Wry Heat - by Jonathan DuHamel

Ice core bubbles and carbon dioxide

by on Jan. 12, 2012, under Climate change

It has been gospel among proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming that atmospheric content of carbon dioxide has never, in the last 400,000 years, risen above about 280ppmv (parts per million by volume) prior to the industrial revolution and its consequent burning of fossil fuels. Current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is approximately 390ppmv. That contention is based on analysis of bubbles entrained in glacial ice and the unproven assumption that the composition of the bubbles accurately reflect the composition of earth’s atmosphere at the time the bubbles were formed. There is much uncertainty about that assumption. There are also the troubling facts that values of pre-industrial carbon dioxide derived from Antarctic ice core estimates are inconsistent with those derived from most other proxy methods and that carbon dioxide values derived from Antarctic cores often don’t agree with the much higher values derived from Greenland ice cores. I will address some of those uncertainties in this post.

As snow falls and accumulates, the weight of the snow causes it to eventually recrystallize into ice granules called “firn.” At this point the spaces between firn granules are open, allowing migration of gases. With sufficient burial, the firn becomes glacial ice with closed off bubbles. This process can take tens to thousands of years with the result that what eventually becomes trapped in bubbles may be different from the atmosphere.

After the bubbles are encased in solid ice, it was assumed that the relative amount of gases in the bubble could not change, but that is an unwarranted assumption. It has been shown that super-cooled water exists in the bubbles even at very low temperatures. This super-cooled water preferentially dissolves carbon dioxide compared to nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, leaving the gas component depleted in carbon dioxide. Also, at high pressure and low temperature, carbon dioxide is further sequestered in gas hydrates. The very act of drilling to collect ice cores decompresses the ice, and some of the gas hydrates decompose allowing carbon dioxide to escape into the drilling fluid thereby giving uncertain readings. For instance, Neftel et al. (1982) found gas bubbles with carbon dioxide ranging from 237ppmv to 436ppmv from a Greenland core and values of 257ppmv to 417ppmv from an Antarctica core. (They arbitrarily choose the lower values to represent the “true” reading.)

Another proxy, plant stomata can be used to estimate pre-industrial carbon dioxide content. Stomata are the microscopic pores in leaves and stems of plants that are used for gas exchange. The density of stomata varies inversely with carbon dioxide concentration. These stomata can be empirically calibrated by comparing plant stomata density to known carbon dioxide concentrations. The stomata of fossil plants can be used to estimate past carbon dioxide concentrations. Estimates of carbon dioxide from stomata show much higher and more variable values compared to ice core estimates. The stomata proxy shows that pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels where similar to those today: 360- to 390ppmv.

It is true that humans have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of late, but warming since the “little ice age” has also caused more carbon dioxide to exsolve from the oceans. Human contribution to the total carbon dioxide flux is only about 3% (source) and it seems that the contention that we alone have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 100ppmv in the last 100 years is fraught with much uncertainty.

 

References:

Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. and Ono, N., 1992b. “Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?” The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284. Elsevier Science Publications.

Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. GEOLOGY, January 2005.

Neftel et al., 1982, Ice core measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 years. Nature, 295, 220-223.

Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (2004) 1947–1954.

 

 



  • http://www.m4gw.com elmer

    The other problem with ice core samples is they assume each strats is an annual strata which is incorrect. It just means there was a weather event.

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Elmer, Ice cores don’t assume anything. If you think climatologists aren’t smart enough to figure out what an appropriate stratigraphic protocol is, you might want to just stay at WUWT. JP

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Ice cores are indeed one of the wonderful tools developed by paleoclimatologists and they have become increasingly  accurate, reliable tools.
    Of course the potential problems with ice core data have been exhaustively studied and the physical processes as well as the interpretive methods have been refined over time. The implication that there is something in Jon’s article that paleoclimatologists have overlooked or were unaware of, is utterly fatuous.

    Look at the dates of the studies on ice cores Jon cites. Twenty years ago. Another, thirty years ago. Think any progress in ice core processes or methodology have happened in the last thirty years?

    And here we come to an important point that denialists always seem to miss. Multiple corroborating lines of evidence. In this case: “Are there other scientific inquiries that verify the findings from ice cores?”  Oh yeah, lots. For example:  isotopic geo chemical studies, the study of rock isotopic ratios; deep sea sediments;  dendrochronology, the study of tree rings; pollen distribution, the study of plant types and prevalence from pollen found in sediments, ice, rocks, caves, etc.; lake varves (like dendochronology, but with lake sediments – a varve is an annual layer of mud in the sediment), corral bed rings; fossils; and studies of geological settings. These, and other methods, not only corroborate, but in some cases help calibrate the ice core analyses. Once again we see that the conclusions of climate science are based on a truly vast compilation of many lines of evidence.

    I won’t waste your time showing how some early procedures were flawed, although it is an interesting story and reveals how science progresses.  

    One more well-worn denialist argument:  ”Human contribution to the total carbon dioxide flux is only about 3% (source) and it seems that the contention that we alone have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 100ppmv in the last 100 years is fraught with much uncertainty.” It would be. Except for the fact that it leaves an unmistakeable isotopic signature. And curiously (for denialists) the equivalent O2 is lost. There is uncertainty in climate science, but the human contribution of CO2 isn’t one. As for it’s “only 3%”. Because a number is small doesn’t mean it can’t have a large effect (and affect). “Eat your applesauce, it’s only 3% arsenic.”

    About the only trick Jon left out of this one was a short-term chart beginning and ending at particularly convenient times. A climate denialist is a person who drowns while wading across a stream with an average depth of three feet.  JP

    • Jonathan DuHamel

      Most of the proxies you mention are used to estimate temperature, not CO2.

      • Dr. John Parsons

        Of course. That’s the point. Multiple Lines of Evidence pointing to the same conclusion. JP

  • Mark in Sandy Eggo

    John,
     
    It has been a while.
    So, Jon shows that the primary method (at least the one that most of the climatologists talk about) has some issues.  You assert that Of course the potential problems with ice core data have been exhaustively studied and the physical processes as well as the interpretive methods have been refined over time.
    I assure you the Climatologists propensity to use “interpretive methods” to come up with the desired (and funded) answer is precisely the reason to throw up a BS flag.  Does the phrase  “Mike’s [Mann's] trick to Hide the Decline” ring any bells.  Oh yeah, I guess that was just another “interpretive method” that got found out.  Thanks FOIA!!!
    I do not understand the snarky apple comparison at the end.  You seem to be saying that the 3% of the presumed 100 Parts Per MILLION rise in CO2 since the Little Ice Age is the “bad” arsenic, and the the 97% of the rise in CO2 is the “good” apple.  And that somehow the 3 PPM will kill you, and the 97 PPM will keep the doctor away?
     
    So somehow, those 3 parts per million of CO2 are sitting there vibrating all to hell and warming the earth, while the 97 parts per million (along with the 280 PPM that were there at the end of the Little Ice Age) are NOT warming the earth.
     
    The point is that ice cores for determining historical CO2 is not precise, and there is reason to suspect that CO2 may have been higher in the past than what is reported as “settled science”.  But, even with this 100 PPM rise in CO2, the portion from humans burning fossil fuels, that as you say, has an unmistakable isotope, is only 3% of this 100 PPM.  And yet we are restructuring our economy based on this?  Billions of dollars to solar, wind, and electric car subsidies for this?
     
    The end of the Global Warming farce is coming. 
     

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Hi Mark, Good to hear from you. Mark, metaphors are symbolic rhetorical devices not factual corollaries.

      As regards the 3% CO2: I don’t know why it’s so difficult for some to get it in their head that something small can have a large effect. And of course the heavy Carbon isn’t inherently more “dangerous” than C12, it just has an effect. What effect? Positive feedbacks. Multipliers. Maybe this is where folks get confused. If it were only the heat trapping directly attributable to the 3%C, we might expect to see a climate sensitivity of ~1C-1.5C. It’s the feedbacks that run that number up to ~2.5C-6C. That’s a monumental difference in climate. You’re smart Mark. You know the mechanism and you know the implications. The so-called 97% from natural sources is a flux in equilibrium. The 3% is not in equilibrium. Before the industrial revolution ~.4GT/y would oscillate from positive to negative and back annually. Now we’ve thrown that balance off by more about 8GT/y. That’s 2000%. Little different story. Now do you see how 3% is a very big number?

      If Jon’s information wasn’t twenty and thirty years out-of-date, yours and his statement that there’s “reason to suspect that CO2 may have been higher in the past than what is reported as “settled science”, would have some validity. (Remember the topic is ice cores.) Study the history of ice core analysis and look at the problems Jon invoked. They no longer exist. Do we know everything there is to know about ice cores? No. Do we know a lot? Yes. Have the problems Jon mentioned been investigated and resolved? Yes. Are there other lines of evidence that corroborate the ice core analyses? Yes, many.

      By the way Mark, please answer this question: What was the “decline” that was hidden? JP

      • Dr. John Parsons

        Mark, maybe you’re just too busy to answer my question. But just for the record the “phrase” you put in quotes is incorrect. Phil Jones never said that. I’m sure you wouldn’t intentionally try to deceive anyone here, and you are just parroting something you heard or read without bothering to make sure it was true. When you do get the time, I look forward to you setting the record straight and maybe even answering the question I posed. JP

        • Jonathan DuHamel

          From: Phil Jones
          To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
          Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
          Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
          Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

          Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
          Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
          first thing tomorrow.
          I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
          to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
          1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
          land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
          N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
          for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
          data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
          Thanks for the comments, Ray.

          Cheers
          Phil

          Prof. Phil Jones
          Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
          School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
          University of East Anglia
          Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
          NR4 7TJ
          UK

      • nofreewind

        >>By the way Mark, please answer this question: What was the “decline” that was hidden? JP
        The decline that was hidden was recent temperature decline(divergence) using the JUNK SCIENCE TREE RING PROXY that was used.
        From: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0942777075.txt
        November 16, 1999: email 0942777075
        That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email that generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the catchphrase of the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind:
        Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:
        I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

        • renewable guy

          The origonal article is about co2 gas in the ice and now we are hide the decline by the author. It appears that Jonathon DuHamel has raised the white flag on co2 in the ice. Good luck Jonathon on your resistance to AGW.

  • Mark Schaffer

    So adding in the real temps gets us closer to what actually is happening.  Jon,  What is the problem in using real data?  And what is the rest of the context you are leaving out?  What is the Nature paper Dr. Jones was referring to and have you read it and can link to it?

    • Jonathan DuHamel

      Here is a discussion of Mike’s Nature trick:
      http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%e2%80%99s-nature-trick/

      • Dr. John Parsons

        Jon, I have a “trick” for multiplying a two digit number by 11:
        Take the original number and imagine a space between the two digits (in this example we will use 52). Add the two digits together and put them in the middle: 5_(5+2)_2. That’s  it – you have the answer: 572.
        Jon, you know what Phil was talking about and you continue to vilify and denigrate him. It’s shameful.
        Now, why don’t you do the honest thing and tell your reader’s what the “decline” was. JP

        • Jonathan DuHamel

          Mann constructed the “hockey stick” graph using proxy temperatures. However, around 1940 those proxies started to show a declining temperature. That was not politically correct, so rather than continue to show the decline, he hid it by truncating the proxies and using the increasingly warm biased land-based thermometer readings instead. His graph is thus apples and oranges.

          • Dr. John Parsons

            Jon,
            There has been no “declining temperature” since “around 1980″. No Global Temperature dataset shows a temperature decline since 1980. Not even the dataset of climate skeptics Spencer and Christy show any decline in T since 1980.

            The DECLINE WAS: a decline in the width of certain tree rings from trees in far northern latitudes. It’s a problem like the ones Jerry Dicksen mentioned for proxy Archea data. These kinds of problems arise constantly as science expands it’s knowledge of the mechanisms behind proxy evidence. To suggest that “the trick” was “hidden” is preposterous. It’s on the graph! It’s explained in the literature.

            The DECLINE WAS NOT: a decline in temperature measurements for any time period. People who suggest that it was are ignorant of the facts or are being deceitful.

            Anyone willing to spend a little time can just read what the American Association for the Advancement of Science says about the subject. If someone thinks the AAAS is part of a global conspiracy, they don’t have a science problem. They have a mental problem. JP

            • Mark in Sandy Eggo

              John,
               
              Nice insults.  Getting cranky, eh?
              You say:
              The DECLINE WAS NOT: a decline in temperature measurements for any time period. People who suggest that it was are ignorant of the facts or are being deceitful.
              As shown below, the multi source temperature timeline that was the basis of the Hockey Stick stopped showing the tree ring data in 1940.  Phil Jones talks about doing this as well to Hide the Decline.  Would you say that someone who had a source of data that they stopped at 1940 when the data started diverging was deceitful, or your the person who points out that that the data stopped was deceitful. 
              See http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
               
              Additionally, the statistical trick that Michael Mann used, when analyzed, had a tendency to produce a hockey stick shape from most data sets of temperatures input – even random ones.  See Ross/McKitrick paper at
              http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
               

              • Dr. John Parsons

                Mark, You are showing a graph from audit. See the graph that was published. If you continue sourcing from blogsites with an agenda, you are going to continually have a credibility problem. JP

              • Dr. John Parsons

                Mark, Your citation is incorrect. We all make mistakes, especially when we get cranky. JP

        • Mark in Sandy Eggo

          The decline that I speak of was the famous Michael Mann Hockey Stick Graph.  The graph used the proxy data of Ken Briffa’s magical tree rings to show temperatures in the past from 1400 to 1940, but hid that proxy based temperature after 1940.  The data from 1940 showed a decline in temperature, so it had to be hidden.  We don’t want anyone being confused or asking uncomfortable questions.  Even though his proxy data went all the way to the present, Michael Mann just hid this data. 
           
          What did this data show?  Is shows that from about 1940 to 2000, the temperature according to this proxy, dropped about 0.2 C, while at the same time the instrumented temperatures showed a similar rise (which has since leveled off). 
           
          One might say that “of course this is what he did.  He used the best data available, and this level of instrumentation was not available before that.”
           
          But, if in the period that the best temperature instrumentation is available,  the tree ring proxy is so strikingly wrong, and goes absolutely opposite to the instrumented data, how can they be trusted at all.  Doesn’t this mean that he relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature is not understood?  Shouldn’t this mean that all historic temperatures based on tree rings should be suspect?  Generally, tree growth (and thus tree ring width) is driven by temperature, access to water, access to nutrients in the soil, and probably others.  However, the “settled science” crowd trusts the tree ring experts for older temperature records.  However, if the tree ring experts cut of their data to hide the decline, how can ANYONE trust them.
           
          An honest scientist would show all the data, and if he had explanations for a proxy that is divergent from other sources, he would either try to explain this difference, or identify this as a ripe topic for further investigation.  An honest scientist would NEVER arbitrarily cut off the data just when it shows information that is contrary to the thesis.
           
          And it all spirals from there.  The climate models that tell us that we need to destroy our economy to reduce CO2 are tuned to what we “KNOW” happened in the past on historic global temperature and and CO2 levels.  Jon’s article talks about what we may NOT know about CO2 levels (not settled science).  The hidden divergence between tree ring temperature and instrumented temperature shows us that there also is a lot we may NOT know about the past 600 years of global temperature.
           
          All in all, very UNsettled science practices by some UNscrupulous scientists.
           
          For more details on how the Climate Scientists hid data, please follow the link below.  See it with your own eyes:
          http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
          For a more fun take on Hide the Decline, see:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvst
           
           

          • Dr. John Parsons

            Mark, We were evidently posting at the same time. See my answer to Jon. Mark, do you distrust all science or just climate science? I get the impression you don’t trust science that tells you something that causes dissonance for your political beliefs. Your attempt to be cute with the “UN-” stuff betrays your agenda.

            You said,”An honest scientist would show all the data, and if he had explanations for a proxy that is divergent from other sources, he would either try to explain this difference, or identify this as a ripe topic for further investigation.” That’s just exactly what the IPCC scientists did in their report. Read it yourself.

            You said, “  However, if the tree ring experts cut of [sic] their data to hide the decline, how can ANYONE trust them.” Mark, nobody hid anything. The divergence point is labeled on the graph and discussed in the literature that accompanies it. You need to read the reports and not just accept everything propounded at WUWT or Audit.That’s politics not science. JP

          • nofreewind

            Sorry to but in here, but you are both wrong.  Dr. Richard Milne does a lot of work on education regarding critical thinking on climate change.  If you listen to his lecture starting at 49:00 he starts talking about Hide The Decline and explaining it to us earthlings.  At 50:30 he explains it all.  Mike was asked to do this “by the publishers”, it was “just the publishers wanting to make thing simpler”.  See how simple climate science it!!!  They always make it super simple for us simpletons.
            http://youtu.be/gh9kDCuPuU8

            • Dr. John Parsons

              Apparently it didn’t work. JP

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Mark, Jon chooses to direct his reader’s to sources that he knows have a bias that supports his own. Here’s what Nature succinctly said: “A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists’ conspiracy theories.” JP

      • Jonathan DuHamel

        And “Nature” is of course not biased. Ha! The fact that they used the term “denialist” shows the bias.

        • Dr. John Parsons

          Jon DuHamel says that the journal Nature is biased. Jon, links us to sites like ClimateAudit, where we can avoid the bias. Wow. JP

        • renewable guy

           The fact that they used the term “denialist” shows the bias.

          Are you a skeptic or a denialist? A skeptic is looking to find the truth by questioning things and when those are answered they move on. CO2 is a GHG along with water vapor. The data coming in supports AGW.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html

          Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
          When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
          This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
          Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
          So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
          If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).
          If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
          Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).
          With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
          An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

          • Jonathan DuHamel

            Renewable guy:

            Several of your links are broken so I couldn’t find the papers. It did find this analysis (from CO2Science) which raises considerable uncertainty:

            The mechanism by which carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Stated very simply, CO2 is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but largely opaque (in certain wavelengths) to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. Hence, it allows most of the incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass unimpeded through the atmosphere and warm the earth’s surface; but when the earth’s surface reradiates energy back to space, a significant portion of this thermal radiation is absorbed and reradiated by the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules back to the earth’s surface, incrementally warming the planet. Without this effect of water vapor (which is responsible for the lion’s share of the warming), CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet’s average temperature would be about 34°C cooler than it is presently.
            So has the greenhouse effect increased in recent years as the air’s carbon dioxide concentration has risen? In an attempt to answer this question, Harries et al. (2001) analyzed the difference between the spectra of outgoing longwave radiation obtained by two orbiting spacecraft that looked down upon the earth at periods of time separated by a span of 27 years. The data utilized were obtained over a specific area in the central Pacific (10°N-10°S, 130°W-180°W) and a “near-global” area of the planet (60°N-60°S). The data were further constrained by masking out land/island areas and areas believed to contain clouds.

            The results of their analysis showed a number of differences in the land-masked and cloud-cleared data, which the authors attributed to changes in atmospheric concentrations of CH4, CO2, O3, CFC-11 and CFC-12 that occurred over the 27-year period separating the times of their two sets of measurements. Hence, they concluded their results provided “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the earth’s greenhouse effect” over the 27-year time interval. Such a conclusion, however, is somewhat misleading, for it does not provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in earth’s total greenhouse effect. It does so only for the cloud-free part of the atmosphere located over a portion of the planet’s oceans. Furthermore, research that has been conducted on the cloudy portion of the atmosphere over the oceans has revealed the presence of a highly negative feedback phenomenon that is capable of totally overpowering any temperature increase forced by the rise in greenhouse gases (Lindzen et al., 2001).

            Unfortunately, the work of Harries et al. tells us nothing about earth’s climatic response to the inferred increase in radiative forcing, which is what the climate change debate is all about, i.e., trying to evaluate the competing effectiveness of various positive and negative feedbacks that come into play when there is a small change in the radiative properties of the cloudless atmosphere. In fact, the authors’ finding is so rudimentary as to be essentially meaningless. Assuming, for example, that their handling of their data is correct – and this is a huge assumption they spend over half their paper discussing – they have simply verified the definition of the greenhouse effect! Hence, the debate continues.

            References
            Harries, J.E., Brindley, H.E., Sagoo, P.J. and Bantges, R.J. 2001. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355-357.

            Lindzen, R.S., Chou, M.-D. and Hou, A.Y. 2001. Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: 417-432.

            • Dr. John Parsons

              Jon, What CO2 Science and you stated would have some validity were it not for the fact that subsequent experimental evidence has addressed these issues. You noted the Harries, et al paper of 2001 but ignore the subsequent work cited by renewable guy. Specifically, Griggs 2004 and Chen 2007. The conclusions of the subsequent work were not addressed in the CO2 article. It’s unacceptable for researchers to ignore the work of others in the field at issue, and is grounds for journals to refuse publication or retract the work of those who do. I will give CO2 Science the benefit of doubt and assume that they have simply not updated their work.

              Secondly, renewable guy made a number of other points that you did not address at all. That is of course your prerogative. I would simply note that they stand unchallenged here and should be presumed valid unless shown otherwise. JP

              • Dr. John Parsons

                Jon, The Lindzen paper cited by you is the infamous “Iris” paper. I know of few papers on the subject of Earth’s climate that have been more thoroughly rebutted. Once again, none of this is divulged by the CO2 Science “review”. JP

            • Dr. John Parsons

              Jon, I also had trouble with a couple of the links but a quick search will bring them right up. JP

            • renewable guy

              cloud feedback

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

              On the neg feedback side is Lindzen and Christy. Clouds would reflect more heat dimming the possible heat build up. Unfortunately for the neg feedback voters, these guys are being sent out to PR more than science. That’s really too bad for good science. 

              #####
              Most of the cloud feedback uncertainty is due to cloud changes near the equator, in the tropics and subtropics (Stowasser et al. 2006).  Studies by Lauer et al. (2010) and Clement et al. (2009) both looked at cloud changes in these regions in the east Pacific, and both concluded that based on a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations, and climate models, the cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.

              Dessler (2010) used cloud measurements over the entire planet by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments from March 2000 to February 2010 to attempt to determine the cloud feedback.  Dessler concluded that although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback is probably positive (warming), and may be strongly positive.  His measurements showed that it is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.

              #############

              The jury isn’t really truly out one way or another on pos or neg feedback on clouds. Most of the scientists seem to lean that it will be pos. Dessler’s own work leans more pos with some less likely hood of neg feedback.

              • Dr. John Parsons

                Renew, Nice post. I was just going to add this link to NASA: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php, where a good deal more info is available. Your analysis was more than fair. I would only add that the feedback, should it be negative, has been strangely lackadaisical for the last thirty years. JP

              • Jonathan DuHamel

                Another view of Dessler (2010), separating cause from effect:
                The Dessler Cloud Feedback Paper in Science: A Step Backward for Climate Research

                • Dr. John Parsons

                  Yes, I regularly read Roy’s blog. He got hammered by Dessler and his latest theory was so roundly debunked that the publisher of the Journal in which it originally appeared resigned in an act of contrition. And you are correct Jon, his theory has the cause and effect of certain climate mechanisms backwards from most climatologists. I like Roy, simply because he can ” do the Math”. Like Steve McIntyre, the climate science community needs skeptics that have deep knowledge of the subject matter. Roy, unlike Steve, actually proposes falsifiable hypotheses; unfortunately for him, what has happened so far is that they have indeed been falsified. JP

      • Mark in Sandy Eggo

        John,
        Earlier in this thread, you said to me
        But just for the record the “phrase” you put in quotes is incorrect. Phil Jones never said that. I’m sure you wouldn’t intentionally try to deceive anyone here, and you are just parroting something you heard or read without bothering to make sure it was true.
        Now,  you don’t acknowledge the proof staring you right in the face that Dr. Phil Jomes DID talk about using Mike’s trick to “Hide the Decline.”   Not even an “I stand corrected”?
         
        So John, you then shift the sands for what truth is, and say “Phil Jone’s email, as interpreted by Nature magazine, says there is nothing to support the denialist’s theories.”
         
        What happened to “Phil Jones never said that.”  Climate Gate, including this red hot email, even made it past the gatekeepers of the Mainstream press.   This is probably the most famous email from the 2009 bunch, and you don’t even know it existed, and in fact you state authoritatively that it never happened?  Really?
         
        For someone who speaks with such vigor on this issue, to have never had the intellectual curiosity to read some of these emails yourself is astounding.  To have the level of trust that you appear to have in second and third party sources so that you would state that Phil Jones never said this is sad.
        Here is another one from your hero, Phil Jones.  Or, are you going to tell me he never said this either:
        “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
         
        All the Climategate emails are at http://foia2011.org/.   People can see for themselves what was said by our Climate Scientist betters behind the doors, while a different public “settled science” story was being told to the world.  And, while John may wish to do so, the rest of the world does not need to have Nature magazine tell us what to think about something where the facts are right in plain sight.

        • Dr. John Parsons

          Mark, I don’t “stand corrected” because you doctored the quote. At least Jon reproduced the quote honestly. JP

        • Dr. John Parsons

          Mark, I have read the emails. I’ve read the unedited versions in context. You’ve only given doctored quotes out of context. If you expect me to accept without question your doctored versions, I won’t do that. JP

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Mark, You list as a citation “Ross/McKitrick” paper. Ross McKitrick is one name. I am assuming you were referring to the McKitrick/MacIntyre paper. If so, “At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.” JP

  • Jonathan DuHamel

    Gentlemen:
    I see from the discussion above that John, in his apparent religious fervor, sees only what he wants to see and has deflected the argument without presenting any actual evidence in rebuttal.
    I have several times requested that John present physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the majority of recent warming. So far he has not presented any unequivocal evidence, but has continued deflective arguments using pejorative terms such as “denialist.” Mark Evans, editor of the Tucson Citizen, has offered, upon a John’s request, to allow him his own guest post where he can state his case, but John has declined after finding out that “Dr. John Parsons” would have to identify himself.
    The offer of a guest post still stands. And John, I suggest you read the Tucson Citizen Commenting Guidelines: http://tucsoncitizen.com/commenting-guidelines/ since you are very close to crossing the line.

    • Mark Schaffer

      Is there anyone reading Jon’s biased opinions who was previously convinced by the evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Disruption and has now been persuaded otherwise?  Anyone making such a claim must show dated evidence they once accepted the overwhelming data for human caused disruption.

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Jon, I’ll review the guidelines as you suggest. But Jon, you asked me to produce evidence that supports the hypothesis that human fossil fuel emissions are a major cause of the warming we see in our climate, not “unequivocal evidence”. I doubt that anyone will be able to do that. I certainly can’t.
      If I get overly provocative and approach “crossing the line”, just give me a heads up and I’ll dial it back a little. Is using the word “denialist” or “denier” forbidden?
      Thanks for warning me. JP

    • Richard H

      No guest post?  Jezzz, there goes his following.  Tell me it isn’t so, JP.

      • Dr. John Parsons

        Hey Rich, Where ya been? Usually you and Mark gang up on me. Kinda missed it. JP

        • Richard H

          Long vacation.  Kind of missed the fun too,  but I’m b-a-a-ack.
          Seriously, guy, get your own post, you can do it and we’ll all be there.  

          • Dr. John Parsons

            Rich, Thanks for the props. I no longer live in the county, so I could only do a guest post. You can still slap me around here. Hope you had a great vaycay. JP

  • Jonathan DuHamel

    Pejoritive terms should not be used so frequently.  Rebuttals should be to the point based on stated evidence.  For instance, John what is the evidence that ice core reading are no longer uncertain even thought they disagree with other proxies?  I will agree that unequivocal is too harsh, and urge you to provide strong evidence.  For instance, can you show that fossil fuel emissions are the only reasonable explanation for recent warming?

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Jon, My point was that most of the issues that you proposed as problematic for ice core analysis have been addressed. And, as is nearly always the case, many new questions have been raised. There is a great new book on the subject: “The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future” by Richard B. Alley. Professor Alley is nearly universally recognized as a preeminent expert on the subject and the book is just a great read. I know you’d enjoy it.

      Thanks for “not moving the goalposts” on me (re: unequivocal).

      I haven’t seen evidence for Global Warming that even approachs that of AGW. Many scientists have attempted to identify other possible mechanisms, but most are rebutted or fall to Occam’s razor. There is always the possibility that some unknown mechanism will be revealed by science. But imagine a mechanism that somehow cancels out the effect of CO2 warming while at the same time adding that same amount of heat from some other mechanism. That seems extremely unlikely. But all scientists are skeptics at heart and I’d never say never. As you know, science works by proposing a falsifiable hypothesis and testing it. Probably the most likely candidate for such a hypothesis would be found in how clouds react to climate forcings. We don’t know as much as we’d like to about that. Another area might be found in the actions of aerosols. Again, we’d like to know more. But so far no one has come up with a falsifiable hypothesis in these two areas that fits the facts as we know them. And the AGW hypothesis does fit well and has not been falsified. Many of the details of the hypothesis have been disproven and or changed over the years, but the tenets have withstood scientific inquiry very well. The evidence that Human CO2 emissions are causing the global warming we see, is, well…overwhelming. JP

  • nofreewind

    According to HadleyCRUT the earths temperature has increased about .4C since 1975, after being basically stable since 1940. 
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/to/trend
    From 1940 to 1975 CO2 was rising exponentially. 
    http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_global_1750-2000.jpg
    The “Theory” is that the rise in temperature from CO2 is going to allow the air to hold more water vapor which will cause feedback further increasing the air temperature.  NOAA now wonders why that hasn’t happened for the past 10 yrs as they thought it should.
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAA_ESRL_AtmospericSpecificHumidity_GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948_With37monthRunningAverage.gif
    Evil man is now releasing about 33% more CO2 per year than we were in 1998, yet there has been no rise in temperature.
    http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2011/10/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions.html
    You might say El Nino blah blah blah.  But the fact is we have a .4C rise in temperature from 1940 to 2010 in 70 yrs and a “Climate Scientists” says that only mans miniscule CO2 contribution can be the cause??  Even though we saw the same slope and same rise  in temperature rise from 1900 to 1940.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1890/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:1940/trend
    Of course IPCC blames that early 20th C rise on solar irradiance.   There are so many factors going on that we don’t know about.  There is more that we don’t know that what we know.  The oceans store a tremendous amt of heat, we don’t even have any idea when the next El Nino will come or the other ocean cylces, we know nothing about them, except how to measure them.  We have no idea how much actual heat is in the oceans, it is even harder to measure ocean heat than global air temperature heat.  To say that all this is concrete, factual, figured-out, can be modeled – is PREPOSTEROUS!!! 

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Wind, Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century. Secondly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating logarithmically, not exponentially. Thirdly, the regular readers of Jon’s blog are not fooled by arguments purporting to show climate mechanisms by using short term data sets. Read thie analysis performed in “An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009)” which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. You selective use of datasets ignores the fact that earth’s energy balance is not determined by surface air temps alone.

    Your comment: “Climate Scientists” says [sic] that only mans [sic] miniscule CO2 contribution can be the cause??” Minuscule Contribution? Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s atmosphere was in equilibrium, with ~.4GT CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere roughly annually. Now we are adding 8+GT/yr to a system that was previously in equilibrium. Sound minuscule to you?

    Preposterous? “…we know nothing about them, except how to measure them. [El Niño and ocean heat]“. That’s preposterous. JP

  • nofreewind

    Email 4160 from Richard Somerville
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Somerville
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4160-warmist-richard-somerville.html
    Don’t understand cloud feedback, don’t understand aerosol indirect effects, don’t understand air-sea interaction…the list is long he says.  Yes.  The LIST IS VERY VERY long! Very long.  
    > the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century.
    It looks more like .4C  since 1970, that is about 1C per century.  But we really should start in 1940, when our emissions really began.  That is about .6C per century, or less than 50% of your 1.6C.  I think you had better wait for your century to end.  Don’t count on your models before they are hatched. 

  • nofreewind

    >Minuscule Contribution? Prior to the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s atmosphere was in equilibrium, with ~.4GT CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere roughly annually. Now we are adding 8+GT/yr to a system that was previously in equilibrium. Sound minuscule to you?
    THIS – is nothing but a wild guess, a very, very wild guess.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

  • nofreewind

    In FACT.  I take that back.  It’s not a guess whatsoever.  They came up with the conclusion and worked backwards until all the number fit.  They came up with the right numbers to make it all nice and tidy.
    Read – CO2 The Houdini of Gases.  Read it and study it.  And then tell me how it all works so tidy and neat. 

    • Dr. John Parsons

      Wind, Perhaps you weren’t here last month when Jon invited Jerry Dicksen to comment here. Check Jon’s archive of Dec. 2nd. He explains this very nicely.

      Wind, the IEA compiles the records for world fossil fuel consumption. They don’t “guess and work backwards”. They keep records and report the results.

      I looked at your Houdini article. I don’t know how one would even go about “studying” it. It is appropriately named. Houdini would be impressed with the tricks. JP

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Wind, how about this quote from Somerville: “We fully understand the fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect. We also now have persuasive observational evidence of dramatic changes already taking place in the climate system, changes that are not in any sense small. Mankind‘s fingerprints
    have now clearly emerged above the noise of natural variability….” JP

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Mark, I believe I may owe you an apology for being dismissive of some of your comments on the 12th and 13th. I understand that you believe that certain climatologists are trying to deceive the public for their personal gain. I should have presented a more cogent argument in their defense. I’ve been hearing the same arguments for more than a decade. The allegations you presented have been investigated by at least six independent commissions from at least two separate nations. Either you haven’t read them or they failed to disabuse you of your belief in those climatologist’s motives. If those auspicious bodies cannot persuade you, then I certainly can’t. I should have admitted that to you, and left it at that, rather than be what you like to call “snarky”.

    In my defense, I want you to know that two of the people you were maligning are people I know. And I find it difficult to act dispassionately when I hear them being vilified by you and Jon. When folks who are utterly ignorant of the issue do so, it’s easier to let it slide. I hope this clarifies my attitude that you described as “cranky”. I’d say that is an understatement. JP

  • Dr. John Parsons

    Jon, You probably recall the discussion we had about the graph you used in your post of Nov. 9, 2011, attributed to Tim Patterson, that purports to show the correlation between T and sunspot cycle length. You mentioned that you’d be interested in what the corrected graph would look like. I happened to run across this link today that shows that: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf.
    Is a corrigendum forthcoming? JP