In a new GRL paper, Svensmark et al., claim that liquid water content in low clouds is reduced after Forbush decreases (FD), and for the most influential FD events, the liquid water content in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. In particular, they argue that there is a substantial decline in liquid water clouds, apparently tracking a declining flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR), reaching a minimum days after the drop in GCR levels. The implication would be that GCR can affect climate through modulating the low-level cloudiness. The analysis is based on various remote sensing products.
The hypothesis is this: a rapid reduction in GCR, due to FD, results in reduced ionization of the atmosphere, and hence less cloud drops and liquid water in low clouds. Their analysis of various remote sensing products suggest that the opacitiy (measured in terms of the Angstrom exponent) due to aerosols reaches a minimum ~5 days after FD, and that there is a minimum in the cloud liquid water content (CWC) minimum occurring ~7 days later than the FD. They also observe that the CWC minimum takes place ~4 days after the fine aerosol minimum (the numbers here don’t seem to add up).
The paper is based on a small selection of events and specific choice of events and bandwidths. The paper doesn’t provide any proof that GCR affect the low clouds– at best -, but can at most only give support to this hypothesis. There are still a lot of hurdles that remain before one can call it a proof.
One requirement for successful scientific progress in general, is that new explanations or proposed mechanisms must fit within the big picture, as well as being consistent with other observations. They must also be able to explain other relevant aspects. A thorough understanding of the broader subject is therefore often necessary to put the new pieces in the larger context. It’s typical of non-experts not to place their ideas in the context of the bigger picture.
If we look at the big picture, one immediate question is why it should take days for the alleged minimum in CWC to be visible? The lifetime of clouds is usually thought to be on the order of hours, and it is likely that most of the CWC has precipitated out or re-evaporated within a day after the cloud has formed.
In this context, the FD is supposed to suppress the formation of new cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), and the time lag of the response must reflect the life time of the clouds and the time it takes for new ultra-fine molecule clusters (tiny aerosols) to grow to CCN.
Next question is then, why the process, through which ultra-fine molecule clusters grow by an order of ~1000 to become CCN, takes place over several days while the clouds themselves have a shorter life time?
There is also a recent study in GRL (also a comment on May 1st, 2009 in Science) by Pierce and Adams on modeling CCN, which is directly relevant to Svensmark et al.‘s hypothesis, but not cited in their paper.
Pierce and Adams argue that the theory is not able to explain the growth from tiny molecule clusters to CCN. Thus, the work by Svensmark et al. is not very convincing if they do not discuss these issues, on which their hypothesis hinges, even if the paper by Pierce and Adams was too recent for being included in this paper.
But Svensmark et al. also fail to make reference to another relevant paper by Erlykin et al. (published January 2009), which argues that any effect on climate is more likely to be directly from solar activity rather than GCR, because the variations in GCR lag variations in temperature.
Furthermore, there are two recent papers in the Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society, ‘Enhancement of cloud formation by droplet charging‘ and ‘Discrimination between cosmic ray and solar irradiance effects on clouds, and evidence for geophysical modulation of cloud thickness‘, that are relevant for this study. Both support the notion that GCR may affect the cloudiness, but in different aspects to the way Svensmark et al. propose. The first of these studies focuses on time scales on the order of minutes and hours, rather than days. It is difficult to explain how the changes in the current densities taking place minutes to hours after solar storms may have a lasting effect of 4-9 days.
There are many micro-physical processes known to be involved in the low clouds, each affecting the cloud droplet spectra, CWC and the cloud life times. Such processes include collision & coalescence, mixing processes, winds, phase changes, heat transfer (e.g., diffusive and radiative), chemical reactions, precipitation, and effects from temperature. The ambient temperature determines the balance between the amount of liquid water and that of water vapour.
On a more technical side, the paper did not communicate well why 340 nm and 440 nm should the magic numbers for the remote sensing data and the Angstrom exponents, calculated from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET). There are also measurements for other wavelengths, and Svensmark et al. do not explain why these particular choices are best for the type of aerosols they want to study.
For a real effect, one would expect to see a response in the whole chain of the CCN-formation, from the smallest to the largest aerosols. So, what about the particles of other sizes (or different Angstrom exponents) than those Svensmark et al. have examined? Are they affected in the same way, or is there a reason to believe that the particles grow in jumps and spurts?
If one looks long enough at a large set of data, it is often possible to discern patterns just by chance. For instance, ancient scholars thought they found meaningful patterns in the constellations of the stars on the sky. Svensmark et al. selected a smaller number of FDs than Kristjansson et al. (published in 2008) who found no clear effect of GCR on cloudiness.
Also, statistics based on only 26 data points or only 5 events as presented in the paper is bound to involve a great deal of uncertainty, especially in a noisy environment such as the atmosphere. It is important to ask: Could the similarities arise from pure coincidence?
Applying filtering to the data can sometimes bias the results. Svensmark et al. applied a Gaussian smooth with a width of 2 days and max 10 days to reduce fluctuations. But did it reduce the ‘right’ fluctuations? If the aerosols need days to form CCNs and hence clouds, wouldn’t there be an inherent time scale of several days? And is this accounted for in the Monte-Carlo simulations they carried out to investigate the confidence limits? By limiting the minimum to take place in the interval 0-20 days after FD, and defining the base reference to 15 to 5 days before FD, a lot is already given. How sensitive are the results to these choices? The paper does not explore this.
For a claimed ‘FD strength of 100 %’ (whatever that means) the change in cloud fraction was found to be on the order 4% +-2% which, they argue, is ‘slightly larger than the changes observed during a solar cycle’ of ~2%. This is not a very precise statement. And when the FD only is given in percentage, it’s difficult to check the consistency of the numbers. E.g. is there any consistency between the changes in the level of GCR between solar min and max and cloud fraction and during FD? And how does cloud fraction relate with CWC?
Svensmark et al. used the south pole neutron monitor to define the FD, with a cut-off rigidity at 0.06GV that also is sensitive to the low-energy particles from space. Higher energies are necessary for GCR to reach the lower latitudes on Earth, and the flux tends to diminish with higher energy. Hence, the south pole monitor is not necessarily a good indicator for higher-energy GCR that potentially may influence stratiform clouds in the low latitudes.
In their first figure, they show a composite of the 5 strongest FD events. But how robust are these results? Does an inclusion of the 13 strongest FD events or only the 3 leading events alter the picture?
Svensmark et al. claim that the results are statistically significant at the 5%-level, but for the quantitative comparison (their 2nd figure) of effect of the FD magnitude in each of the four data sets studied, it is clear that there is a strong scatter and that the data points do not lie neatly on a line. Thus, it looks as if the statistical test was biased, because the fit is not very impressive.
The GRL paper claims to focus on maritime clouds, but it is reasonable to question if this is true as the air moves some distance in 4-9 days (the time between the FD and the minimum in CWC) due to the winds. This may suggest that the initial ionization probably takes place over other regions than where the CWC minima are located 4—9 days afterward. It would be more convincing if the study accounted for the geographical patterns and the advection by the winds.
Does the width of the minimum peak reveal time scales associated with the clouds? The shape of the minimum suggests that some reduction starts shortly after the FD, which then reaches a minimum after several days. For some data, however, the reduction phase is slower, for others the recovery phase is slower. The width of the minimum is 7-12 days. Do these variations exhibit part of the uncertainty of the analysis, or is there some real information there?
The paper does not discuss the lack of trend in the GCR of moderate energy levels or which role GCR plays for climate change. They have done that before (see previous posts here, here, and here), and it’s wise to leave out statements which do not have scientific support. But it seems they look for ways to back up their older claim, and news report and the press release on their paper make the outrageous claim that GCR have been demonstrated to play an important role in recent global warming.
A recent analysis carried out by myself and Gavin, and published in JGR, compares the response to solar forcing between the GISS GCM (ER) and the observations. Our analysis suggests that the GCM provides a realistic response in terms of the global mean temperature – well within the bounds of uncertainty, as uncertainties are large when applying linear methods to analyse chaotic systems. The model does not include the GCR mechanism, and the general agreement between model and observations therefore is consistent with the effect of GCR on clouds being minor in terms of global warming.
As an aside to this issue, there has been some new developements regarding GCR, galaxy dynamics and our climate (see the commentary environmentalresearchweb.org) – discussed previously here.
Okay, besides tree rings, there are these rings in the otoliths of sea animals. See the above link for the 1999 et al. and Stekis paper mentioning them. Here’s a more recent paper also mentioning those measurements:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00096-0
Can you find the same trend in isotopic ratios of C12/C13, in both the tree rings and the otolith layers, over time?
…”which could age the atmosphere toward 1500 year C-14 age on a time scale of around 50 years”…
Actually greater than 150 years, because it mixes into the atmosphere + upper ocean + biomass C.
#346 John, you use mass and concentration interchangeably, they are different. If you mean ice concentration, then the next time be more specific. It will save both of us wasted time.
As far as “cherry picking” I used the longest temp series available, to get a better perspective.
Hank Roberts says:
“Can you find the same trend in isotopic ratios of C12/C13, in both the tree rings and the otolith layers, over time?”
I am not sure what you are asking. I have thought of looking at the stable isotope changes in individual otoliths over time in long lived fish. Such species as orange roughy, tropical snappers, emperors etc would be amenable to such a study. The hypothesis being that as each layer is laid down in the otolith, it will record the isotopic signature of the surrounding water at that time and therefore, the prevailing environmental conditions. Carbon is problematic for animals as the isotopic signature is also related to the metabolic activity and dietary ration of the animal.
““Can you find the same trend in isotopic ratios of C12/C13, in both the tree rings and the otolith layers, over time?”
I am not sure what you are asking”
He’s asking “Can you find it”.
Can you?
It seems you haven’t even looked.
Yet despite your “skeptical” attitude, you seem infazed by not having even checked.
Richard Steckis writes:
Questioning it is fine. Questioning it and refusing to listen to the answers is dumber than a bag of rocks.
Richard Stekis, your name appears to be on one paper talking about distinguishing the origins of different fish populations based on isotope ratios (because they feed differently). Other papers use the same technique more recently. It looks like it’s done using bone collections from the past, now that the otoliths can be analyzed. Is that right? And not looking at one individual otolith in a long-lived species but at collections from the past, to sort out their origins?
It sounds like you assume a priori that there’s no change in the stable carbon isotope ratio due to climate changeover the past century, right? If so, what’s the chance that assumption, if wrong, may affect your fish research by detecting isotope ratios that differ not due to source but to the time the bones were collected?
Great! Go jump off a high bridge without a parachute, then.
Question all consensus, especially science, specifically physics…
http://freenet-homepage.de/fboehm/co2_iso.html
Is a new link updating a pointer on isotope ratios, see discussion in this topic: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
358 Hank Roberts,
“Richard Stekis, your name appears to be on one paper talking about distinguishing the origins of different fish populations based on isotope ratios (because they feed differently).”
My name is actually on several papers Hank. No. We don’t distinguish the origins of fish populations because they feed differently. We primarily use delta 18O for stock identity (determining different populations). The theory being that the stable isotope of oxygen is taken up in equilibrium with water temperature. Water temperature changes with latitude and therefore geographical location.
You mention that people are looking at otoliths and bones of animals collected at different time in the past. This is also a powerful tool but has it’s problems as stable isotope readings can be affected by how the sample is treated post mortem. Part of the study that I proposed to you was to look at historical otolith collections however, those collections do not go back that far. If you are looking at using stable isotopes for paleoclimatological purposes I would probably be more inclined to look at speleotherms.
“It sounds like you assume a priori that there’s no change in the stable carbon isotope ratio due to climate changeover the past century, right?”
In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects. For oxygen, latitudinal changes would have greater effects on the ratio than climate over the life of the fish. So, no, it would not seriously affect the use of stable isotopes in fisheries research. For instance with tailor (bluefish), the range of the species off Western Australia is from Shark Bay with an average SST of about 22C to the south coast with an SST of about 17C. That is a range of five degrees C. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that average SST has varied by that amount in any one location over the last millenium, let alone 50 or 100 years. In summary, location and metabolic effects have a greater influence on stable isotopic signatures than climate change over the last 100 years.
Having said that, nature is full of surprises.
Actually Dhogaza #359, more accurately your argument is a logical fallacy.
Ok John shall we start over, and let’s be clear on the terms. We can use ice “extant” or “area”, but let’s be clear what we are using. The following ref. has a good definition of these terms.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
ijis uses extent, arctic-roos uses both, while cryosphere uses area.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Also ijis uses a upper error of 10%. Cryosphere has a paper of this year comparing ice area with visual observations and satellite data.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/1/2009/tc-3-1-2009.html
So shall we start over again on sea ice? Pick the parameter.
And now for Mark. You say:
#321-“Sea ice extent depends on how much sunlight there is much more than the temperature. And it is more variable because of that to boot”.
#340-“Now, how does the wind or current depend highly on temperature, therefore making the sea ice EXTENT a good analogue for temperature like you want to make it?”
Now Mark, nothing was said about wind & currents being subject to temperature, only you assumed it. Your words speak volumes.
Here is what the above referenced paper says about sea ice:
Sea ice in both hemispheres is expected to respond sensitively to climate change. Sea ice insulates and influences the heat transfer, mass, exchange of gases and interaction between the atmosphere and ocean. The Antarctic pack ice is a region of highly variable ice responding to winds, air temperatures and ocean currents. Ice motion causes floes to collide and deform while at the same time creating areas of open water between floes, quantified as either the open water or ice concentration fraction. In winter, cold air temperatures drive new ice growth at the highest growth rates in the open water areas, while in summer, these areas of open water of low albedo absorb solar radiation and warm up, enhancing the ice melt (Hunke and Ackley, 1998; Nihashi and Cavalieri, 2006;
In re, time delays.
It’s worth noting that while the speed of light is a pretty big number, the total distances involved are far longer than a single light second (or less, from the top of the atmosphere to the surface …). Sun-to-earth is 8 minutes (My house to the grocery is about 2 minutes — doesn’t mean I’m moving at relativistic speeds …). Likewise, some of the events (like CMEs) don’t travel at relativistic speeds, or happen at point-instants in time.
What we do seem to know is that quiet periods in the sun’s life are somehow associated with cooling periods, while active periods are somehow associated with warming periods. Something is causing the “pause” in the otherwise upward march in temperatures. While the paper may not be convincing based on flaws in the science, there’s still this matter of a very quiet sun (33 days without a spot, flux around 72, least active cycle in a century) and a 10 year pause in new record high years. Until the climate scientists come up with an explanation for that pause, I’m putting my money on the big orange ball of fire.
Part of science is having models that have predictive abilities. Whether it’s GCRs and CCNs, or whether it’s some other mechanism, the predictability of the existing “quiet sun” versus “active sun” model does have a better track record right now than “more CO2 equals more heat”. Doesn’t mean things aren’t going to roar back in with a vengeance (where I think the smart money is) when SC25 or SC26 rolls around, just means that SC24 is a really interesting time to be alive.
(And having mentioned SC25, it’s worth noting that there are some who are so in denial about the SC23 / SC24 transition that they are claiming SC24 is “over” and SC25 is “starting” just because SC23 refuses to die.)
#363 J. Bob
Ok J. Bob shall we start over and let’s be clear on terms.
Ice extent/area is NOT the same as ice mass.
Ice extent/area
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/200800904_Figure5.png/view
Ice mass
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/200804_Figure4.png/view
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20070822_oldice.gif/view
If we are going to look for the best indicator regarding AGW ice mass loss is a stronger indicator. It is just weird when I hear people like John Coleman or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh say things like hey the ice grew back again this winter so what’s all the fuss about global warming.
You of course are concentrating on discussing ice extent/area and error ranges. Why? What is your point? Why do you think that point is relevant in the context of AGW?
Context gives you relevance.
OK John, I’ll take a look at “ice mass”, but a couple of things.
#1 – If you are talking mass, then you must know the volume & density. One can approximate the volume by surface area and depth. Now how do you get density? If you have ever seen blocks of ice during “ice harvesting”, they are not uniform, and have variable density. If you assume each specific year has a certain density, then you are adding another uncertainty into the mix, to errors in area/extent and ice depth.
#2 – Do you have any plots (since 1979) of polar ice “mass”, to evaluate?
#350 Patrick
Yes, thank you for the correction. I meant NH leaning toward the sun of course (brain glitch on my part).
As to your second point. I’m not studied enough to have a clearer picture but I have seen 20kyrs as the most likely number even though there is not precise year for entry but rather a decline in temps entering icier age.
As to with AGW, that is an interesting question?
If human capacity to mitigate is reduced or eliminated and negative aerosol effects diminish exposing full positive forcing, associated feedbacks, and atmospheric lifetimes of GHG’s included… well, that is an interesting question.
249 Mark
Mark, thanks for your reply, but after your explanation of “rational sense” my curiosity about your meaning has been increased.
First, a quick restatement of your definition of a “rational sense”:
1-“not irrational”,
2-a statement based on reason
3-a statement not based on rhetoric,
4-a statement not based on “gut feeling”
5-a statement not based on lack of knowledge.
For starters you say that by rational you mean “not irrational”. I checked four dictionaries; all were in agreement. I’ll only quote the briefest. According to Websters’s New World, College Ed., irrational =“1 lacking the power to reason 2 contrary to reason; senseless; unreasonable; absurd…SYN irrational implies mental unsoundness or may be used to stress the utterly illogical nature of that which is directly contrary to reason…. ” This seems to imply that by your define “rational” could be a synonym of “sane”? Then you go on to say, “That people say they think climate models jury-rigged with hindsight because clouds are not 100% well modelled is happening, but not because of rational thinking.” Are you not then implying that no sane person would suggest that climate models may be juri-rigged…etc?
As to your word “rhetoric”, it should be kept in mind that while rhetoric can suggest more emphasis is placed on the form of expression than on the matter, rhetoric can also refer to the art of using words effectively while presenting reasonable, well thought out material. (Often this effectiveness is the result of well constructed analogies.) But, I am aware of nothing in general experience or research to suggest that “rhetoric” can be used as a synonym of irrational (as you appear to have defined it). If, however, you want to insist on it, go ahead. But consider that many of your posts appear to use analogies.
And while those “gut feelings” may well be “irrational” when they are the feelings of a pathological nut case, as far as I know gut feelings themselves are certainly not, by definition, irrational. Also consider that you applied a gut feeling of yours regarding my motives.
As to your equating “not rational” with a lack of knowledge, it seems to me this is simply wrong. None of my dictionaries nor Roget’s 2 come even close to this. The usual word to refer to a deficiency of knowledge is “ignorance”. This word would therefore be appropriate relative to your claim of my wanting to “not get it”; after all, you can have no knowledge whatsoever about my real motives or mental states and processes. (Regarding your Tom Hanks metaphor, sorry but I’m not a movie fan, so that allusion went right by me.)
So, considering your imagined reason why I question the point and value of your analogy is based on something occurring within your own mind (maybe a gut feeling) not part of any objective reality you can possibly know at this time, and considering you employed a rhetorical flourish (a simile) related to some fictional movie character, what part of your answer passes your test of statements holding in a rational sense?
Not to discount the above, and in the spirit of your hectoring others to carefully read something before commenting, why did you simply assert , “And the analogy is a good one,” when I DID NOT say it wasn’t. Because I could not see any clear point what I asked was, “why you’d even consider it a reasonable analogy ….”
Finally, it was my original intent to offer an analysis of your analogy to demonstrate why I was having difficulty discerning your point, but instead I’ll put this aside and ask again what thought ( or point) are you trying to convey? If you want to go further and explain why it’s a good metaphor rather than a bad one (e.g. “my wife is analogous to our fence—they’re both 5 foot 6” is a bad one because the parallel is trivial in the extreme). But no movie metaphors please. To make the strongest case I can that you should try again to answer my question about the point or purpose of you analogy I’ll paraphrase your own words, taken from your reply to Robert Bateman in 248. “Without proving [your analogy works to make] YOUR point, you HAVE no point.”
Ron.
#366 J. Bob
Please click on the links when I provide them so I don’t have to repeat myself. This is an animated gif image of ice mass from 1981 to 2007:
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20070822_oldice.gif/image_view_fullscreen
The ice thickness is derived from satellite measurements but there have also been measurements from submarines and direct observations as well.
Please read the articles and view graphs/images before responding:
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMTGPRTKMF_index_0.html
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/graa_general.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2009-19.html
Plot Antarctica
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-028
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/grace/grace-20060302-browse.jpg
Image Antarctica
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=18
Plot Greenland
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=6
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-176
Image
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/grace/grace-sea-20051220-browse.jpg
Arctic News
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
Images
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20090406_Figure5.png/view
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20090406_animation.gif/view
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/20080924_Figure3.jpg/view
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/arctic/200804_Figure6.png/view
Simply put, the cryosphere is just getting started to disintegrate.
FurryCatHerder writes:
No, it does not. Do the math. I can give you the time series data if you want it.
BPL #370,
“No, it does not. Do the math. I can give you the time series data if you want it.”
Which time series are you referring to? There are about a dozen of different aspects of Solar Activity available. e.g. Sunspots, TSI, Magnetic Flux, Solar Wind etc. etc. etc.
#369 J.P. Reisman:
1. Your referenct to a plot on NASA’s web site is to a plot of 3 years of data. That could be more about noise than signal (just ask Tamino)
2. The Greenland plot is of 5 years of data. Better. But still in the realms of noise?
3. Pretty much all your Arctic images mean nothing. Of course multi-year ice depleted in 2007-2008. That is not to say that it will not recover. It depleted because of localised weather conditions forcing ice into the Atlantic. NOT because it melted away.
#369 J.P. Reisman:
Actually John, the multi-year ice loss has been going on since the 1980s. See:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/the_other_arctic_sea_ice_loss.php
The site has a pretty good time-series graphic that clearly shows multi-year ice being transported from the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic between Greenland and Iceland.
[Response: Hmmm… a decreasing trend in the average thickness of arctic sea ice… I wonder what might be driving that?- gavin]
#372 Richard Steckis
The very first image in the list of links was 1981-2007, did you miss that?
The short term data/news items were there to add to the long term trend described in the other links. Remember, you are a scientist, so you are allowed to add things together and figure out what it means… or are you not that kind of scientist?
This link also shows the difference between the 1981 and 2007
So add the 1981 through 2007 trends and then add known attribution, level of forcing, cause of forcing, thermal inertia and any other relevant components. All in, the reasonable conclusion is AGW.
You did say you were a scientist right?
As I have said before, I am a generalist, so I look at all the different little pieces of the puzzle and when viewed together, it all paints the picture rather well. But still, you should be able to figure this stuff out too.
Instead you relegate things to the noise rather than place it in context to see if it is all fitting a bigger picture. That makes me wonder about you a bit.
“Response: Hmmm… a decreasing trend in the average thickness of arctic sea ice… I wonder what might be driving that?- gavin”
How about the intrusion of warmer Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean causing a melting of the underlying ice? That is not atmospheric temperature causality but changes in wind driven oceanic currents.
#374 John Reisman:
“#372 Richard Steckis
The very first image in the list of links was 1981-2007, did you miss that?”
I did actually. However it is the same graphic I alluded to in my html link. It says a lot about Geostrophic wind and current movements and little about atmospheric warming due to AGW.
“Instead you relegate things to the noise rather than place it in context to see if it is all fitting a bigger picture. That makes me wonder about you a bit.”
Wrong John. I do actually do attempt to piece the puzzle together and have come under intense criticism at times for doing it (particularly from Tamino).
#375 Richard Steckis
Are you saying that the northern hemisphere is not warming? Remember, the sea ice extent is also indicating that it’s warmer in the Arctic, the temperature readings are showing it’s warmer, and you are willing to commit to saying “That is not atmospheric temperature causality but changes in wind driven oceanic currents.”
You really think this is only wind? On what basis?
#369 John, thank you for the references, and I’ll hang on to some of them. A major problem I have is the few graphs presented are short term charts. Hence we don’t know if this is a natural cycle, or not. So for the current time, I guess we have to go with the sea ice area/extent. Personally I would like to get rid of the term mass, and use 2nd, 3rd, etc. ice volume, in that it conveys a more accurate description of the sea ice, but whatever. As long as we are clear on the terms.
> we don’t know if this is a natural cycle, or not.
How do you distinguish a snowfall from an avalanche?
Re 377 “You really think this is only wind? On what basis?”
Remember, denialists don’t have to have a consistent or realistic model of the world. The only thing that matters is that it can’t be warming caused by CO2.
So of course it can be wind. Probably caused by all the hot air from the UN assembly in NY drifting up the NE coast or something.
Richard Steckis writes:
I have used Lean’s and Svalgaard’s TSI reconstruction, sunspot number, years since minimum, and years since maximum, and none of them show a major contribution. Note, also, that a lot of the proxies you mention correlate closely with TSI.
re #368.
What are you yibbering on about, boy?
rational. with a reason behind it.
And why did you feel the need to write a small essay on the definition of rational?
“Now Mark, nothing was said about wind & currents being subject to temperature, only you assumed it.”
Nope, re read the entire work. you’re putting words in my mouth
“Your words speak volumes.”
No, it doesn’t. That you want to egg it on to speak volumes says a lot for your need to avoid the truth.
“So shall we start over again on sea ice? Pick the parameter.”
OK. Have several times, but here goes again:
Sea Ice Volume.
That you avoid accepting Sea Ice Volume speaks volumes for the “firm ground” you wish you start from.
“In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects.”
That sentence means nothing.
Nothing was made about ***climate*** causing an isotopic change.
It merely had to be part of the climate. Which require it to be accessible to the ecosystem.
E.g. plants.
Doofus.
More to the point:
> “In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope
> ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects.”
Citation needed.
As an amateur reader, I pointed to one of the sources discussed at RC earlier quantifying the change in the stable carbon isotopes due to fossil fuel.
Please point to a source you’re familiar with that has the numbers observed in fish otoliths, your area of expertise.
If you’ve assumed there’s been no global background change in the ratio of stable carbon isotopes, and that all the variation observed is due to environmental conditions specific to the fish, this might be time to revisit the research
Hank Roberts #385:
Try These
Ashford, J. and Jones, C. Oxygen and carbon stable isotopes in otoliths record spatial isolation of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides)
Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta (2007) 71(1): 87-94
M. Huxham*†, E. Kimani‡, J. Newton§ J. Augley*. (2007). Stable isotope records from otoliths as tracers of fish migration in a mangrove system. Journal of Fish Biology. 70(5): 1554-1567.
Kalish, J.M. (1993). Fish Otolith Chemistry. Science. 260(5106): 279
Kalish, J.M. (1991a). Oxygen and carbon stable isotopes in the otoliths of wild and laboratory-reared Australian salmon (Arripis trutta). Marine Biology. 110(1): 37-47.
Kalish, J.M. (1991b). C-13 AND O-18 ISOTOPIC DISEQUILIBRIA IN FISH OTOLITHS – METABOLIC AND KINETIC EFFECTS. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 75(2-3): 191-203.
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/61/2/243#B22 (Good source for references)
Hope this helps.
Sorry Hank.
First reference should be Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.
#384 Mark says:
““In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects.”
That sentence means nothing.
Nothing was made about ***climate*** causing an isotopic change.
It merely had to be part of the climate. Which require it to be accessible to the ecosystem.
E.g. plants.”
[edit]. I suggest you read up on the stable istopic disequilibria in fish otoliths.
RS, are fish otoliths climate forcing systems?
No?
Then they too are not climate changers of Carbon isotopes.
Please show where these fish get their sequestered fossil fuel carbon from. Do they walk^Wswim about wearing miners helmets and carrying pickaxes? If not, how do they get to digging out millions of tons of earth to get to the coal seam?
#389 Mark:
Your argument is a logical fallacy. I postulate their potential use as a measure of environmental change. Nothing more.
#389 Mark,
I think I see where you are getting confused. I stated and you challenged:
“In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects.”
That statement meant changes in the isotope ratios of the fishes otolith, not the climate or the atmosphere.
Perhaps if you had followed the discussion between myself and Hank Roberts more closely, you would have understood this.
Right, we have to measure isotope levels in otoliths, because, well, because. . . wait a sec, I know there’s a good reason here somewhere. . .
Mark, he’s right; he’s published in the area; you can look up the papers.
My question was whether scientists using these ratios have been assuming a constant background — or whether they factor in the known change over time from fossil fuel use.
That change happens in the atmosphere predictably. It won’t happen so evenly in the oceans, as mixing is very different. So it may not be an answerable question. I just asked, have they thought of looking into it.
It’s a focused question. Just reading for me will take weeks at least to see if it’s answerable from the literature, starting from no knowledge and a few cites. Richard can probably answer without hesitation, it’s from his own field, if he decides to engage on this technical issue.
Reward good behavior wherever you find it. Opportunity may be rare.
“Mark, he’s right; he’s published in the area; you can look up the papers.”
I don’t know that this is what I asked.
RS seems to want to use climate forcing for biological cycling. I want to make sure that RS isn’t conflating the two.
RS: “Perhaps if you had followed the discussion between myself and Hank Roberts more closely, you would have understood this”
I did: Post 361
““It sounds like you assume a priori that there’s no change in the stable carbon isotope ratio due to climate changeover the past century, right?”
In terms of carbon, there is more change in the stable isotope ratios due to metabolic effects than climatic effects.”
It seems that either you don’t understand what you’re talking about or you can’t communicate it.
OK, going back to #361, I’ve missed some crucial info, and I need to apologize for an unnecessarily snippy post. (#392.) Obviously, the otolith measurements have utility for biology.
But this discussion is about climatology. We’ve got data over about 50 years now on the seawater itself, plus a bunch of paleo stuff, where each sample of foraminera or whatever is specific to a particular location. How do the otoliths add utility to the data already available?
Put otherwise, what is the relevance for our larger discussion here?
Details, details ….
> change in the stable carbon isotope ratio
— in the atmosphere (we know that one, already cited)
— in the ocean, at various places
— in prey species
— in predators’ otoliths
> due to climate changeover the past century, right?”
PS, I was asking not about a change “due to climate change” but rather whether the fish scientists are looking at any changes thta would be due to emission of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. Does _that_ change propagate into biology, per se.
There’s more to ask, e.g.
Whether there’s further change detectable in any of the measurable sites or structures, and whether that would occur due to changes the background level from fossil carbon, or changes in in temperature, rainfall, or biological preference for one isotope — is a followup question or two.
This is way more than enough (as Blake says, “you never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough” — I think that’s one of the Proverbs of Hell).
Open question, revisit in a year or two?
Mark, #394,
No doubt Steckis is working hard to conflate the 2. Meantime with the total body of fish severely depleted, he might have an opinion (which is none science/research based speculation) on the effect of reduced fish dung on the surface water CO2 solubility and where that specific CO2 might go versus that of plankton skeletal bound CO2. There’s been a paper out on that some months ago. Everything is connected and some things are weighing in much heavier than other things humans have changed and are changing.
#397 Hank Roberts:
“PS, I was asking not about a change “due to climate change” but rather whether the fish scientists are looking at any changes thta would be due to emission of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. Does _that_ change propagate into biology, per se.”
Hank. That is something that I am interested in investigating. As far as I know, no one is looking into how climatic changes might be reflected in otolith isotope fractionation nor how changes in atmospheric stable isotope fractionation might be reflected eventually in fish otoliths. We know from other research that 14C from atomic testing in the 1960s is reflected in fish otoliths and therefore have been used for age validation of certain fish species.
see: http://www.marinebiodiversity.ca/otolith/english/Abstracts/Campana%201997.pdf
Of course 14C is a radioactive isotope.