Posts

Showing posts with the label patrick frank

What Caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)?

Image
The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a period of time beginning about  56 million years ago. Temperatures increased by 5–8°C[2][4] due to a large excursion of biogenic carbon. Temperatures increased extremely rapidly, and the perturbation of the carbon cycle led to ocean acidification and a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera. The warming event occurred suddenly, geologically speaking, perhaps in as little as 10,000 years[12], making it one the most rapid warming events detected in the Phanerozoic. The extreme warmth of the PETM lasted less than 220,000 years before returning to "normal" Eocene levels. The rapid warming warming associated with the PETM makes it a good analogue to current warming, so I think it would be helpful to cover this event as well as provide a bibliography for further reading on the subject. The PETM is also one among many examples in geologic history where it is clear that GHGs were driving global warming. CO2 led (and drove) the warmin...

Patrick Frank Publishes on Errors Again

Image
Recently I came across yet another paper by Patrick Frank[1] attempting to claim that climate scientists have been underestimating uncertainties in climate-related data. In this paper, he takes aim at GMST data, and he argues that  LiG resolution limits, non-linearity, and sensor field calibrations yield GSATA mean ±2σ RMS uncertainties of, 1900–1945, ±1.7 °C; 1946–1980, ±2.1 °C; 1981–2004, ±2.0 °C; and 2005–2010, ±1.6 °C. Finally, the 20th century (1900–1999) GSATA, 0.74 ± 1.94 °C, does not convey any information about rate or magnitude of temperature change. The resulting GMST graph from his calculations is below. Essentially, he's saying that errors associated with liquid in glass thermometers are so large that we can have no confidence in the global warming trend in the major GMST datasets. Of course, the organizations producing these GMST datasets all evaluate the uncertainties associated with their anomaly values, and their estimates are invariably much smaller - about ±0.05°...