For sediments it is very important to study fossils and microfossils, especially foraminifera (micropaleontology), they are very good indicator of climate change.

That is a rather broad question. Climate always changed and will always change. First, you need to decide on what time scales you're interested. The jpg shows a compilation of sea level curves. Climate change is one of the reasons for a change in sea level.

Hello

I suggest that you should start your adventure with this subject from the analysis of geocheical changes in dust and clay , changes in the amount of crystallized salts in salinas or changes in ice stored in glaciers.

I wish you many successes.

What do I study ? If I want to work with climate change.. is that you mean

Elnaz ........

Read the Dr.Kenneth's comment "...........My recommendation is to focus objectively on the past records, not just the geological past, but the past beyond the last few generations". '

This is very important remarks to understand climate of the last 200 years. As a geologist, you have to understand the role of nature on the climate.

Regards

Dear Prof. Dr. Kenneth M Towe,

Thanks a lot for your recommendations. As I have answered in last comment, in general I wanna focused on the tufa and travertine sediments in terms of geochemical analysis such as O and C isotopes. Do you think this method can be useful for me??

Best Regards,

Elnaz

Dear Hendrik Lantzsch,

I appreciate you for your response and your help.

I would like to focus on tufa and travertine sediments as a today sediments for achieve to my goal. Do you think these type of sediments and microorganism in related (based on isotopic analysis) can be useful or good signature for my study??

Best Regards,

Michał Ruszkowski

Gopikrishna Nidigonda ,

Asit Kumar Batabyal

Thank you all for your response.

In addition to oxygen and C isotopes, you need to date them using U-series isotopes for interpreting the isotopic data in time perspective. Tufa formation involves CO2 and pH changes and thus it would be useful to reconstruct carbonate ion concentration and pH of the past. One of the useful tool for this would be boron isotopes. Good luck

There's a great amount of focus on/funding for geochemical studies aimed at understanding past climate change; the most widely applied is d18O. However, these geochemical methods typically posess often overlooked uncertainties beyond purely analytical uncertainty; the use of innapropriate equations, seasonal temperature variations, water depth of sample, migration etc. An alternative, perhaps less fashionable, approach to undertanding past climates is the use of proxies such as organisms/sediments whose presence relies on specific climatic conditions; evaporites, striated pavements, palms etc.

You must choose the timescale and the space.

The time scale will drive the best methodology. In the space I research the coastal areas and in the time, i study the actual and the Holocene. In the last 11000 years, i like to investigate the sea level changes and the nowadays, coastal erosion and simulations.

Depending on the diatoms and oxygen isotops

Starting from a concrete object, reading references, and looking for fund!

For sediments it is very important to study fossils and microfossils, especially foraminifera (micropaleontology), they are very good indicator of climate change.

I survey fossils of vermetids and your relationship with sea level changes in Holocene .

Geology and climate - some signatures to determine the climate in the geological past:

• Rocks , red coloured with iron oxides - a hot climate at the time of deposition
• Tillite - Glacial activity - a cold environment
• A layer of salt on the rocks – evaporation of sea water at high temperature, indicator of a hot climate
• Coral reefs - tropical waters
• Spore and pollen - useful in the determination of plant species and climate. For e.g. marine plants, tropical plants etc.
• Microfossils - tiny fossils, usually smaller than 4 mm in size. Microscopic parts of plants and animals, useful indicator of how climate has changed over a period of time.
• Landscape - Today's landscape gives clues to the climate of the past. For e.g. Semi-circular or U-shaped valleys indicate the path of movement of glaciers
• Oxygen isotopes - Rocks carry the isotopic signatures of the water in which they were formed. The ratio of oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 recorded in rocks, fossils, ice and sediments can provide nature of climate at the time they were formed

The history of the earth (Precambrian to Cenozoic) is written on rocks and fossils. To know the climate we have to understand the nature's language.

Regards

An article about sea level in Holocene!

Dr. Kenneth,

"Asit most of the things......are rarely global in their extent". Yes it is true.

These are, in general, the tools that can be used to interpret the past climate at different periods (depositional environments) of any area/region. The evidences for all the listed studies may not be available in a particular region. But, an approximate study on past climate can be made.

With best regards

Dr.Fabio,

A good article - prediction of sea level based on studies of 'Vermetids Shells; output of a big team of researchers.

Regards

Thanks Dr. Asit!

You should focus on the paleontological study of deposits plus geochronology (to know better the age of the event).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/joylyxgksrle4k0/It%27s%20not%20the%20heat....pdf?dl=0

The sun... Not the sunspot number, but the peak-trough frequency.

but always remember, the moment you begin to believe your own hypothesis, you are a dead duck as a scientist.

Frank Beales (oral communucation)

My recommendation is plate climatology (www.plateclimatology.com). In other words the role of geothermal heat through volcanism both on land and under the sea. The period since the 1980s is the best because of the coverage of satellites is freely available.

It's time to refocus research on the impacts of previous warm intervals (e.g., the Late Bronze Age Optimum, the Iron/Roman Age Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period) to better resolve both positive and negative effects of a warmer climate. Rising sea level has been with us for thousands of years. Its impact will be especially serious for coastal areas that feature crustal subsidence. We know where these rheological conditions exist and will need to plan accordingly for measures that will save human lives.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/joylyxgksrle4k0/It%27s%20not%20the%20heat....pdf?dl=0

There is a strong correlation between cooling and warming and the solar cycle right up to today.

Plants react very sensitively even to the most insignificant climatic fluctuations, therefore the results of spore-pollen analysis allow not only to reconstruct climate changes, but also to reconstruct paleotemperatures.

I could propose to you a review (https://www.academia.edu/6352597/495-504_47bis.6_Rischio_ambientale_dei_camb_climatici_-_Catino_D.qxp_III_MIllennio_2009) but it is written in Italian

Anyone here research the construction of sea level variation curves in Holocene ?

Dear Dr. Francis,

I can not download the file. Could I send the pdf here?

As palaeobotanist I can suggest you: if you would like to study palaeoclimates based on continental sediments, it is important to have in mind that the plants are an important proxy, mostly the leaves morphology, anatomy (e.g. stomata density) and taxonomy.

Elnaz - If museum resources are available, you might seek out Natural History collections that contain materials traditionally used in climate studies; Foraminifera geochemistry for, example. Core samples maintained by the petroleum industry could be another source materials and perhaps funding.

A less traditional approach would be a time series of archaeozoological assemblages where ancient mollusks or vertebrate taxa could be identified, quantified and or subject to geochemical study. Such materials can provide a record of enviro-cultural dynamics over the Holocene epoch (See Dr. Towe above). Pollen and phytoliths can be extracted from sediment samples, sediments adhering to bone shell, or artifacts.

"tufa and travertine sediments"

Be very careful because these carbonate minerals are open systems and could continue to exchange with the atmosphere. You want to study some independent mineral at the same time for con=mparison that can be a closed system, maybe something volcanic as a check on your results. However, keep an open mind. There is no such thing as a bad experimental result, only a bad interpretation.

Read here: 1- Revision the last glaciations scale of North American. Part 2. The Ice is godfather of Alaskan placer gold

2. The origin of lakes and sandy deserts of mountains during the melting of glaciers –Taklamakan and Gobi deserts (EN)

3. Formation of placer gold deposits in Canadian Shield during late Wisconsin glaciation

what about ostracods role beside of foraminfer?

The most important question of our time - Is CO2 the cause of climate change/global warming?

Unfortunately, the proponents for combatting the CO2 rise probably have a lesser knowledge of the paleoclimate record. That's not to say that we can rely on these data for predicting the future although the same has been said for numerical models by the SEPP and others. Personally, I would rely more on the paleoclimate record i.e., on the facts.

Kenneth/TC

I think the so called consensus is supported by atmospheric scientists whose expertise is not on palaeo-records and the complicated interactions of Earth systems science. This is where the problem lies.

On the subject of sea level, tide gauge records must be at least 50 years long to indicate trends because of the influence of 55-75 year cycles. Satellite altimetry records available since 1993 are also too short.

"................scientists whose expertise is not on palaeo-records and the complicated interactions of Earth systems science". (Remark of Dr. Wyss) - This seems to be true. Regards

i think climate change is more urgent and we should focus on it more

Kenneth

Everywhere you spread your personal misinformation

Show us the pause in temperatures in the real data-set:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Or do you have an own temperature-set?

Kenneth

It has remained a challenge in cutting edge research to find convincing evidence for global acceleration of sea level rise based on existing records. Harry’s country may be a key.

Kenneth, I apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick but, it seems like you're trying to dismiss global warming?

If that's the case then forget the evidence for either side of the argument for a second and look at the consequences resulting from both sides. Surely it's better to err on the side of caution? Better to take action to try to limit global warming, and be merely embarrassed if you were mistaken, than to do nothing and then it turns out you should have done something?

As for this hiatus, I'm not sure why it's relevant? The author is merely discussing a percieved discrepency between modelled temperature rises and the observed data. Their statement 'Natural fluctuations are big enough to overwhelm steady background warming at any point' is merely saying that they believe that the percieved hiatus is due to an overwhelming of the steady background warming by several natural fluctuations. They still accept that there is a steady warming.

Their paper is best summarised by these sentences, 'As greenhouse gas concentrations rise further, a negative decadal trend in GMST becomes less likely. But there will be fluctuations in rates of warming and big regional variations associated with natural variability'. Put simply it's a warning to researchers that they need to be aware that the steady global warming signal caused by rising CO2 will contain noise caused by natural fluctuations.

It's pretty unanimously agreed amongst climate scientists, both modern and ancient, that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperatures. There's also reliable evidence to support the idea that atmospheric CO2 has increased rapidly due to human influence. It's therefore logical to be concerned and proactive when considering our CO2 outputs.

Kenneth

Are you accusing the total climatology community of fraud?

There are several independent data-bases including that of Spencer (a denier BTW) who all have data-sets with incresing temperature for the past almost 50 years

Show us where the pause/hiatus is in those data sets

The as always cherry-picked references you give are

1. outdated

2. give a description of variability

Kenneth,

Plenty of irrelevant things engender a lot of interest; engendering interest isn’t a measure of relevance. I suspect the reason it garnered interest wasn’t because of any scientific concerns but from press/political motivations. I’m not sure why you keep highlighting things discussing ‘natural processes’. Their relevance isn’t in a global warming debate but in an earth system model debate. Thus, if that’s why you believe them to be relevant let’s discuss models.

Trying to pick holes in models, which their creators would probably openly acknowledge themselves, really serves no purpose. Most researchers attempting to model near future climate change would tell you how difficult producing accurate models at that temporal resolution is. Modelling the Earth system at wider temporal resolutions isn’t as much of an issue, because the overall trends can be seen through the noise but, that noise is a real problem when modelling at the scale of years not Ma; hence the ‘hiatus’ discussion.

However, just because we can’t accurately model near future climates due to these natural variations at the moment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. It does no harm to run models, compare them to observations, tweak them, rerun, repeat. It’s the only way we’ll get better models and models are the only thing currently at our disposable to predict the future. I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by pointing out models are wrong; ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’.

Addressing your opinion that a rise of 1 degrees and 1 foot is ‘very little’, that’s simply a matter of perspective. A rise of 1 degrees and 1 foot might be ‘very little’ to you, but to most researchers it’s massive in terms of the timeframe in which it’s occurred. We’re already experiencing effects from these ‘little’ changes and if they continue at this rate the impact will be huge.

As for the discussion on ‘fraud’; the figures you gave to demonstrate it are comparing a temperature estimate from 1991 to one from 2012. Not to mention they clearly state that they’re estimates for different things; surface vs atmospheric. You also have no idea about the possible variations in data or equations used to provide both estimates.

Ken

I refer you again and again to the real data sets that include 2017

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2018/global-surface-temperatures-in-2017

-Summary

•2015, 2016 and 2017 are the three warmest years on record in a range of surface temperature data sets

Kenneth is right.

Global warming due to CO2 is a hoax.

C13/C12 ratio is not conclusive of anything. Coal and Continental oil have C13 contents smaller than actual atmospheric values.

Warming up the planet melts the ice what means that the oceans will cool down first. If water cools down its volume decreases what means sea level must decrease.

What are they talking about?

No one can say for sure what is going to happen!

@mr Costa-de-Moura

Please present your calculation how much the oceans can get cooled by melting of the ice?

I recommend Kenneth's answer

Best Regards

Ken reminds all geologists and paleoclimate researchers about what we have all known for centuries. If ancient civilizations could adapt to the Late Bronze Age Optimum, the Iron/Roman Age warm interval and the Medieval Warm Period, I feel certain that 21st century technological advances will take care of our non- CO2 air pollution problems. The rest is up to nature.

Does exist any laboratory needing post doctarate researcher to oscilation sea level theme?

Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change: Introduction and Overview

Conclusion of the article:

Geologists know the earth is a single dynamic system, billions of years old, that is not in equilibrium. A flat, featureless, and uninteresting earth would be the result of equilibrium. Because change is constant, inevitable, and interesting, humankind must embrace change rather than fear it. Adaptation to the changes that continually occur on our planet requires flexibility, planning, and acceptance of the earth-system constraints. Political processes cannot change earth dynamics. Changes that do take place must be placed in context of their real effects. And finally, a major and recurring theme of this volume bears repeating once more. Climate drivers are variable in both time and intensity and--regardless of the largely political belief that human consequences on global climate are pronounced--human influences are of comparatively low intensity and take place over short time spans. The nonequilibrium systems that control natural phenomena on earth very likely dwarf man’s ability to affect climatic conditions on a global scale.

Article Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change: Introducti...

Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response

In this paper, the authors explored a broader conceptualisation of “adaptation pathways” that draws on ‘pathways thinking’ in the sustainable development domain to consider the implications of path dependency, interactions between adaptation plans, vested interests and global change, and situations where values, interests, or institutions constrain societal responses to change.

Article Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pa...

Regards