Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (56713)	8/8/2014 4:33:02 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Denier weirdness: how an old block of wood changed climate physics forever, not! Sou \| 3:14 AM There's an article that's been doing the rounds of denier blogs over the past few days. It finally was picked up by Anthony Watts and copied and pasted onto his blog, WUWT. It's a two part copy and paste - of something science denier Larry Bell wrote and something that climate crank Pierre Gosselin wrote. ( Archived here.) The article is about what could be Germany's version of Denier Don Easterbrook, or not as the case may be. The article is about Christian Schlüchter, an emeritus professor with the Institut für Geologie at Universität Bern. According to the article at WUWT, the good professor is a climate science denier. I'm not so sure about that. A find that was heralded by scientists The article starts with this odd sentence: Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy. Now the reason I say the sentence is odd is not simply because scientists usually are delighted with new discoveries. There were two more reasons. Firstly, when I did a search to see if I could find a paper on the subject, I found that it was cited no less than 123 times according to Google Scholar. That doesn't signify the paper being "not cheered". Quite the reverse. Particularly since it was published in The Holocene, not the highest profile journal, though a very respectable publication. Christian Schlüchter collaborates with Thomas F. Stocker - Co-Chair of IPCC WG1 The second reason I found the sentence odd was that the paper by Christian Schlüchter was coauthored by Ulrich E. Joerin and Thomas F. Stocker. I'm not familiar with the work of Ulrich Joerin but most readers will be familiar with Thomas Stocker. He was co-chair of Working Group 1 of the IPCC. A "warmist" if ever there was one. That would be particularly galling to Pierre Gosselin, whose blog article was copied and pasted at WUWT below Larry Bell's. If he knew about it. Pierre has written rants about Thomas Stocker in the past. The first paper I came across on the topic to which Christian Schlüchter is referring has the following abstract (my paras): Abstract: Subfossil remains of wood and peat from six Swiss glaciers found in proglacial fluvial sediments indicate that glaciers were smaller than the 1985 reference level and climatic conditions allowed vegetation growth in now glaciated basins. An extended data set of Swiss glacier recessions consisting of 143 radiocarbon dates is presented to improve the chronology of glacier fluctuations. A comparison with other archives and dated glacier advances suggests 12 major recession periods occurring at 9850-9600, 9300-8650, 8550-8050, 7700-7550, 7450-6550, 6150-5950, 5700-5500, 5200-4400, 4300-3400, 2800-2700, 2150-1850, 1400-1200 cal. yr BP. It is proposed that major glacier fluctuations occurred on a multicentennial scale with a changing pattern during the course of the Holocene. After the Younger Dryas, glaciers receded to a smaller extent and prolonged recessions occurred repeatedly, culminating around 7 cal. kyr BP. After a transition around 6 cal. kyr BP weak fluctuations around the present level dominated. After 3.6 cal. kyr BP less frequent recessions interrupted the trend to advanced glaciers peaking with the prominent ‘Little Ice Age’. This trend is in line with a continuous decrease of summer insolation during the Holocene. Climate has changed before Now the WUWT article suggests that finding and dating these blocks of wood means that climate has changed before. I'd agree. The paper suggests reasons for the change in climate in the Swiss Alps in the region of these glaciers. The conclusion suggests that the forcing was via changes in the sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic which was in turn affected by changes in summer insolation: It is important to recognize that this natural variability of glacier extent, which occurs on a centennial timescale, is superimposed on a much longer term, multimillennial-scale trend towards increased glacier extent culminating in the ‘Little Ice Age’. This is indicated in our data as a progressively reduced occurrence of wood and peat remnants through the course of the Holocene, which is consistent with a long-term reduction of sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic. The multimillennial trend that is indicated in our data, therefore, is likely forced by changes in summer insolation and hence of astronomical origin. Studies attempting to identify the amplitudes of glacier fluctuations will help to improve the understanding of the pattern and forcings of climate change during the Holocene. Climate has changed before, but not as fast or as much as it is now, and for different reasons. Today's climate change is not because of changes in summer insolation. It's from the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. In case you are wondering how this old-ish paper (from 2006) is being spun at WUWT, here are some snippets ( archived here): Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy. This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.” The paper that I found doesn't suggest that the Alps were "pretty nearly glacier-free" 4,000 years ago. It talks about the advance and retreat of glaciers, not their total disappearance. Larry Bell goes on to suggest: Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland. First of all, the paper that I found didn't have Christian Schlüchter as the lead author. So although he may have discovered the bits of wood, it would appear that the research was done by other scientists. There was no paper in the references where he was the lead author. I did find an earlier paper on the subject, from 2001, where Christian Schlüchter was also listed as a co-author. It too was published in The Holocene. You can download the pdf file here. That paper was again very popular, with 164 citations, according to Google Scholar. Although Thomas Stocker wasn't listed as an author, he was involved. He was thanked in the Acknowledgements for assisting the lead author Anne Hormes: "We offer our sincere thanks to Thomas Stocker for co-referencing Anne’s thesis." A target of scorn? Now do you think that papers on the subject that have been cited more than a hundred times and had the blessing of Thomas Stocker, are consistent with the following spin? Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.” That's funny. Just a couple of paras earlier, he was hailed as having a "distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology". Now he's an "amateur" and a "target of scorn"? I think that maybe "amateur" refers to him not being a specialist on the Holocene. His publication history seems to be mainly focused on earlier times. The "target of scorn" was made up hyperbole from Larry Bell. Then there was this from Larry Bell: Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination. So he's taken a shot at the IPCC. That brings me back to the comparison with Denier Don Easterbrook. Both are emeritus professors of geology. From the WUWT article, it looks as if both are denying the current cause of global warming on the grounds that "climate has changed before". Which would be pretty dumb. By looking at the how and the why of past climate change, scientists help us understand what we can expect as climate continues to change over the next few decades and centuries. Even though the cause of climate change in the Swiss Alps was different to what's causing the current change, it will still help us understand what to expect over time. On the other hand, if you read the interview itself (or the Google translation), it's not at all clear that Christian Schlüchter does reject climate science. The interviewer is asking some leading questions, however the responses don't necessarily indicate that Christian Schlüchter rejects the greenhouse effect. In fact he does say at one point, in response to a question about the role of CO2 in the advance and retreat of glaciers: CO2 plays a role. But you can not explain it for the sole reason, without explaining the motions of glaciers in the 1980s. In addition, one would have to explain the role of the CO 2 played at the major geological "turning points" as 115,000 years ago. Which is fair enough. So is this just another beat up at WUWT? Probably. Deniers will twist anything and everything to reject science. Before you read the nonsense in the comments, you might like to check out Thomas Stocker's presentation of the IPCC WG1 report. blog.hotwhopper.com