Tree Stumps More Reliable Than Emails

[Clinch Leatherwood]

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111128/NEWS/111280307

Fascinating story. The stumps are pretty far offshore. Just goes to show sea levels have been rising all along.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.capecodon.../NEWS/111280307

Fascinating story. The stumps are pretty far offshore. Just goes to show sea levels have been rising all along.

We already have accurate proxies of sea levels showing the large rise that has occurred since the end of the last ice age. They stopped rising about 3000 years ago as we cooled following the holocene thermal maximum. The last 3000 yeas have had overall stable sea level with small ups and downs during the warm and cool periods. The current rise is much faster than anything else in the last 3000 years (because the warming has been much faster and of greater magnitude as well).

These stumps probably are below water because of subsidence and/or erosion. There are more reliable methods of determining past sea level. It sounds like the primary intent of these researchers is to investigate erosion not historical sea level. If you're actually suggesting that sea levels were low enough for trees to grow at that elevation 300-400 years ago (which is the age of these stumps) that idea is easily disproved.

[dabize]

We already have accurate proxies of sea levels showing the large rise that has occurred since the end of the last ice age. They stopped rising about 3000 years ago as we cooled following the holocene thermal maximum. The last 3000 yeas have had overall stable sea level with small ups and downs during the warm and cool periods. The current rise is much faster than anything else in the last 3000 years (because the warming has been much faster and of greater magnitude as well).

These stumps probably are below water because of subsidence and/or erosion. There are more reliable methods of determining past sea level. It sounds like the primary intent of these researchers is to investigate erosion not historical sea level. If you're actually suggesting that sea levels were low enough for trees to grow at that elevation 300-400 years ago (which is the age of these stumps) that idea is easily disproved.

Hey, the stumps are STILL more useful than hacked e-mails

[sgottmann]

Hey, the stumps are STILL more useful than hacked e-mails

And probably more reliable than tree ring proxies.

[PhillipS]

This may be a bit OT but many people aren't aware that what is now the North Sea was dry land during the last glaciation. Trawlers commonly bring up mammal fossils in their nets. One site, among several, that sells these fossils is North Sea Fossils.

Here in Central Texas the creek behind my house is cutting through beds of Pleistocene sediments and after storms I find bones and teeth of ice age mammals such as bison, horse, llama, deer and Dire Wolves.

[dabize]

This may be a bit OT but many people aren't aware that what is now the North Sea was dry land during the last glaciation. Trawlers commonly bring up mammal fossils in their nets. One site, among several, that sells these fossils is North Sea Fossils.

Here in Central Texas the creek behind my house is cutting through beds of Pleistocene sediments and after storms I find bones and teeth of ice age mammals such as bison, horse, llama, deer and Dire Wolves.

Right, and the reason you see them at the surface is a specific erosion pattern that caused those fossils (and not some at the same layer away from the creek bed)

Just bringing it back to topic.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Hey, the stumps are STILL more useful than hacked e-mails

Yes that was the one and only point. Ultimately tree stumps have more scientific validity than much of the climate science that was faked and then covered up the last few decades.

That said given their location it's unlikely it was just erosion.

[dabize]

it'd be nice if the climate change forum could be a fact-based forum.

Quite.

But it is still informative as it is

For instance, I now know just how bad the misinformation about AGW out there is........even among people who really should know better.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not sure why this kind of stuff is allowed to continue on the weather side of this board.

there is NO evidence that anything was faked or covered up.

it'd be nice if the climate change forum could be a fact-based forum.

His account is a gross exaggeration but it is well documented that tree proxies do not show the the 2nd half 20th century warming well at all and for a period in the 1800s as well which is the biggest indictment on their accuracy for paleo reconstruction of temperatures.

[ORH_wxman]

the misinformation, and the deliberate attempt on the part of some to remain uninformed at all costs, is a major concern in the scientific community. comprehensive communication efforts--providing basic science principles so that new research can be understood in context--is 5 years behind the curve. there is a huge push to catch up, but there's still a long way to go. for example, there's a big comprehensive dendro book that is going to be published next year and it's considered a very useful part of reconstructing the past. but that's detail lost on the population at large. there's a huge scientific knowledge deficit among the general public and there's a resistance to facts that is a new gloss on top of it which makes communicating this science an almost insurmountable task at the moment.

as for people here really knowing better--this forum right now is essentially Political Roundtable but restricted to climate issues. look how many times people quote, without any irony, Anthony Watts: not a scientist, not an expert on climate or meteorology, but held up as an expert by many here.

This is no different than people trying to stuff down our throats the "Extreme" weather that is supposedly from AGW despite virtually no evidence that it is becoming more frequent...same as people trying to say that sea level will rise by 2m by 2100...the same as people here trying to tell us that arctic sea ice will be gone by summer of 2015...it goes both ways and you cannot pretend that it is only "deniers" shoving this PR nonsense down our throats.

[ORH_wxman]

as I work in scientific publication and it's in my best interest to have the actual science speak for itself, I'm not condoning the extremists on either side, so this is a straw man argument. (although IMO the extreme weather angle, at least as with respect to hurricanes, has been laid out pretty well I think by Kerry Emanuel.)

and again, the initial statement I objected to was the unsubstantiated claim that global warming science has been faked and covered up.

How come you only object to "denier" nonsense then?

As for hurricanes, Chris Landsea's paper would argue Emmanuel is not correct. Its far from settled science.

[hazwoper]

This has nothing to do with ocean levels and everything to do with the natural process involved with barrier islands.

Overwash during storms is a normal process, absorbing the storm energy and redistributing the sand inland. Tree stumps from forests that once grew on the bay side of barrier islands are occasionally exposed on the ocean side, showing the migration of the beaches to the west after years of big storms. All the "armor plating" of sea walls can only slow the process and - as shown at Atlantic City, New Jersey - cause the waves to expend their energy by moving sand further downstream (south) rather than inland (west).

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/barrier.html

[tacoman25]

How come you only object to "denier" nonsense then?

As for hurricanes, Chris Landsea's paper would argue Emmanuel is not correct. Its far from settled science.

As someone who works at a scientific publication, I'm sure she has her own inherent biases. As we all do.

The whole idea that science is this pure entity that exists in a vacuum and therefore anyone involved in scientific work is somehow above the noise is completely silly.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

His account is a gross exaggeration but it is well documented that tree proxies do not show the the 2nd half 20th century warming well at all and for a period in the 1800s as well which is the biggest indictment on their accuracy for paleo reconstruction of temperatures.

Will, it was an interesting article and was not intended to start all of this. The point I was making is that if someone had found those tree stumps before we fully understood the processes that resulted in the forests demise the first explanation given would have been "the sea must have risen." Not much different than what we do now in trying to explain something we don't fully understand.

It's an interesting article and an incredible area. It's not a barrier beach I don't think. I've spent many a spring and summer day in those waters. No doubt the land has sunk there and big hurricanes take their toll.

The rest of the stuff is just nonsense.

Oh and Trix, global climate change is a real thing. It's not fake. But some of the science behind it? Well time will tell won't it.

[ORH_wxman]

because that is what this forum is full of.

again, the comment I objected to was the unsubstantiated claim that global warming science has been faked and covered up.

Right and its also full of the other end of the spectrum too...we have an entire thread devoted to sea ice disappearing by 2015.

[hazwoper]

It's an interesting article and an incredible area. It's not a barrier beach I don't think. I've spent many a spring and summer day in those waters. No doubt the land has sunk there and big hurricanes take their toll.

It is in fact a barrier beach. From MDCR:

South Cape Beach, located between Waquoit Bay and Vineyard Sound, contains a wide variety of coastal environments, including barrier beach and dunes, salt marsh, scrub oak/pitch pine woodland and "kettle" ponds.

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/southeast/socp.htm

[Clinch Leatherwood]

It is in fact a barrier beach. From MDCR:

South Cape Beach, located between Waquoit Bay and Vineyard Sound, contains a wide variety of coastal environments, including barrier beach and dunes, salt marsh, scrub oak/pitch pine woodland and "kettle" ponds.

http://www.mass.gov/...theast/socp.htm

Have you ever been there? The barrier beach portion of south cape is to the west...and is the barrier beach to Waquoit. I believe the area where the stumps were found sits directly below the 8th hole of the golf course or thereabouts. I guess maybe you're right and it's a barrier beach to the 8th hole sand trap.

[WeatherRusty]

His account is a gross exaggeration but it is well documented that tree proxies do not show the the 2nd half 20th century warming well at all and for a period in the 1800s as well which is the biggest indictment on their accuracy for paleo reconstruction of temperatures.

Not tree ring proxies in general, only some of those found in particular isolated far northern latitudes.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I'll look re the location of the find. I was under the impression it was around the corner by the cliffs at the course. From the photos I can't tell if it's around the corner or on the first corner by the State beach.

either way it's really cool.

[TerryM]

I for one have never been there - but the article quoted refers to barrier islands

"The discovery of ancient forests on barrier beaches is fairly common — Maio was researching one in Duxbury before he began working with the Waquoit research facility — but it helps scientists paint a portrait of what the Cape's coastline looked like thousands of years ago, Maio said."

I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change.

Are you arguing that imaginary climate scientists would make the imaginary assumption that sea level had risen hugely during the last 400 yrs - and would have been wrong?

What is your point - and how does it relate to this topic?

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I for one have never been there - but the article quoted refers to barrier islands

"The discovery of ancient forests on barrier beaches is fairly common — Maio was researching one in Duxbury before he began working with the Waquoit research facility — but it helps scientists paint a portrait of what the Cape's coastline looked like thousands of years ago, Maio said."

I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change.

Are you arguing that imaginary climate scientists would make the imaginary assumption that sea level had risen hugely during the last 400 yrs - and would have been wrong?

What is your point - and how does it relate to this topic?

What happened off the coast with the stump speaks more to the processes outlined here than anything else, just like a lot of what is going on globablly now will someday be explained by processes we better understand at that point. We think we understand far more about global climate change than we do, and I think a lot of what has been reported recently only goes to show how early in the process of understanding we are - and how the science is evolving. Just like the sea level rise off the coast here is easy explainable by what we know today - my point is in a century we may better understand existing global climate change. If science history is a guide what we think we know today is probably only partially true.

http://www.maine.gov...ts/sealevel.htm

Trix, please get off the horse for once. If you had a question about the intent PM would have worked just fine.

[OSUmetstud]

How come you only object to "denier" nonsense then?

As for hurricanes, Chris Landsea's paper would argue Emmanuel is not correct. Its far from settled science.

I think Emmanuel has significantly backed off from his dire predictions that he had back in the 2005-2006 time frame. His modeling research just from 3 years ago shows that a warmed world would lead to less hurricanes in the Atlantic since it would produce a more persistent El Nino like state.

[tacoman25]

I think Emmanuel has significantly backed off from his dire predictions that he had back in the 2005-2006 time frame. His modeling research just from 3 years ago shows that a warmed world would lead to less hurricanes in the Atlantic since it would produce a more persistent El Nino like state.

Just goes to show how much our understanding of the real world effects of AGW is still in flux and uncertain.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Just goes to show how much our understanding of the real world effects of AGW is still in flux and uncertain.

Yes and sadly this thread goes to show how much emotion there is behind climate science...and to some extent the recent news has illustrated how emotion has no place in science.

[tacoman25]

Yes and sadly this thread goes to show how much emotion there is behind climate science...and to some extent the recent news has illustrated how emotion has no place in science.

You can't really separate it. There is going to be emotion/bias involved in science as long as people are.

[hazwoper]

Here is a fantastic hour long video from Orrin Pilkey (coastal geologist who pretty much pioneered the thought of living moving barrier islands). From 15:00-about 20:00 he goes into great detail about the process. I believe the video was done in the 80's/early 90's (??), but it is really good. He notes that only 20 years before the film, the barrier island process was considered a desturctive process when now we understand it as a cycle of replenishment. He also mentions global warming from greenhouse gases at about 46:30.

I wrote a paper about barrier islands and the Corps beach replenishment acitivities in OCNJ back in college in 1994 for my "Problems of the Environment" class and my family has homes at the Jersey shore, so I am pretty interested in the subject. While not necessarily a barrier island, the area where those stumps were found are certainly considered barrier beaches and subject to the same mechanisms.

http://coastalcare.o...hes-are-moving/

[PhillipS]

This is no different than people trying to stuff down our throats the "Extreme" weather that is supposedly from AGW despite virtually no evidence that it is becoming more frequent...same as people trying to say that sea level will rise by 2m by 2100...the same as people here trying to tell us that arctic sea ice will be gone by summer of 2015...it goes both ways and you cannot pretend that it is only "deniers" shoving this PR nonsense down our throats.

There is a HUGE difference between making a projection, whether based on research or just opinion, and deliberately spreading lies and misinformation. Saying "Summer arctic sea ice will be effectively gone by 2015" is a prediction. It will turn out either true of false, but even if false it is still just a prediction. Saying "There's been no global warming since 1998" is a lie. A lie that has been refuted multiple times yet still keeps getting repeated. Can you not understand the difference? There's an old saying that everyone's entitle to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And I'm sure you're aware that an integral facet of any hypothesis or theory is its predictive ability. I think it's safe to say that whether theory is corroborated or falsified depends on how well it makes predictions. Mainstream AGW has predicted (among other things) that global warming will continue as long as GHGs levels keep rising, that extreme weather events are more likely in a warmer world, and that arctic sea ice summer mimimums will continue to drop until the arctic is essentially ice free in summer. None of those predictions are alarmist, they are simply expected consequences of increasing GHG concentratrions. Analyses of available data is the only way to assess the validity of the AGW predictions. That's the scientific method, right, there is no PR involved and nobody is ramming anything anywhere.

Can you help us understand why you seem to have a problem with this?

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Here is a fantastic hour long video from Orrin Pilkey (coastal geologist who pretty much pioneered the thought of living moving barrier islands). From 15:00-about 20:00 he goes into great detail about the process. I believe the video was done in the 80's/early 90's (??), but it is really good. He notes that only 20 years before the film, the barrier island process was considered a desturctive process when now we understand it as a cycle of replenishment. He also mentions global warming from greenhouse gases at about 46:30.

I wrote a paper about barrier islands and the Corps beach replenishment acitivities in OCNJ back in college in 1994 for my "Problems of the Environment" class and my family has homes at the Jersey shore, so I am pretty interested in the subject. While not necessarily a barrier island, the area where those stumps were found are certainly considered barrier beaches and subject to the same mechanisms.

http://coastalcare.o...hes-are-moving/

Great explanation and I'd agree with this. Vineyard Sound is an amazing place (the area that South Cape Beach is in). There are spots between south cape beach and the vineyard that are only 1-2' deep at low tide in some years even miles from shore.

[tacoman25]

There is a HUGE difference between making a projection, whether based on research or just opinion, and deliberately spreading lies and misinformation. Saying "Summer arctic sea ice will be effectively gone by 2015" is a prediction. It will turn out either true of false, but even if false it is still just a prediction. Saying "There's been no global warming since 1998" is a lie. A lie that has been refuted multiple times yet still keeps getting repeated. Can you not understand the difference? There's an old saying that everyone's entitle to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

And I'm sure you're aware that an integral facet of any hypothesis or theory is its predictive ability. I think it's safe to say that whether theory is corroborated or falsified depends on how well it makes predictions. Mainstream AGW has predicted (among other things) that global warming will continue as long as GHGs levels keep rising, that extreme weather events are more likely in a warmer world, and that arctic sea ice summer mimimums will continue to drop until the arctic is essentially ice free in summer. None of those predictions are alarmist, they are simply expected consequences of increasing GHG concentratrions. Analyses of available data is the only way to assess the validity of the AGW predictions. That's the scientific method, right, there is no PR involved and nobody is ramming anything anywhere.

Can you help us understand why you seem to have a problem with this?

Sorry Pollyanna, but there certainly is PR and ramming on both sides of the debate. Do you not believe there is such a thing as AGW alarmism? Do you think everyone on "that side" is perfectly reasonable and totally scientific? And do you really think everyone more on the skeptic side is just telling lies?

[dabize]

Sorry Pollyanna, but there certainly is PR and ramming on both sides of the debate. Do you not believe there is such a thing as AGW alarmism? Do you think everyone on "that side" is perfectly reasonable and totally scientific?

Actually, there is very little real "alarmism" that isn't debunked pretty quickly by the "alarmists", for fear of credibility loss in front of their fellow "alarmists".

So the stuff that sees the light of day is indeed scientific and reasonable, especially when compared to what is emanating (methane? hydrogen sulfide?) from the other side of the fence