Jump to content

Beginning to Unravel


Fairweather

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

 

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

 

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

 

The results are published in Science.

 

Previous climate models have used meteorological measurements from the last 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising CO2.

 

From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

 

The new analysis, which incorporates palaeoclimate data into existing models, attempts to project future temperatures with a little more certainty.

 

Lead author Andreas Schmittner from Oregon State University, US, explained that by looking at surface temperatures during the last Ice Age - 21,000 years ago - when humans were having no impact on global temperatures, he, and his colleagues, show that this period was not as cold as previous estimates suggest.

 

"This implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought," he explained

 

By incorporating this newly discovered "climate insensitivity" into their models, the international team was able to reduce their uncertainty in future climate projections.

 

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C.

 

That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C.

 

The new analysis also reduces the expected average surface temperatures to just over 2 degrees C, from 3.

 

The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates.

 

But it does mean that to induce large-scale warming of the planet, leading lead to widespread catastrophic consequences, we would have to increase CO2 more than we are going to do in the near future, he said.

 

"But we don't want that to happen at any time, right?"

 

"At least, given that no one is doing very much around the planet [about] mitigating CO2 emissions, we have a bit more time," he remarked.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here comes the Static Earth Society....

 

Funny that you say that since the paleo-climatologists mentioned in the article and modellers at the fore of climate studies hold anything but a "static Earth" view but are quite outspoken about the dangers that climate change poses to our planet's ecology and its human populations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true; you're all willing dupes.

 

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/index.htm

 

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf

 

No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused the warming phases observed from 1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming, oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 600–800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming caused CO2 to rise, not vice versa. The present high level of atmospheric CO2 may be the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming is very small.

Global warming of ~0.4° C occurred from about 1910 to 1940 without any significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Global cooling occurred from the mid 1940s to 1977 despite soaring CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 12A,B). Global temperatures and CO2 both increased from 1977 to 1998 but that doesn’t prove that the warming was caused by increased CO2. Although CO2 has risen from 1998 to 2008 no global warming has occurred. In fact, the climate has cooled. Thus, global warming bears almost no correlation with rising atmospheric CO2.

Figure

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar output. Milenkovich cycle. Maybe a little albedo/darkening of glaciers downwind of urban centers. Certainly not CO2/greenhouse. Certainly not the IPCC bullshit report.

 

The thing I found interesting about the BBC piece is that it's the first time they've deviated--even slightly--from the global warming narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly debatable whether CO2 levels influences climate change. Since C02 is the carbon source for plants to live, a concept that most Rush Limbaugh fans can't grasp, one could conclude that increase CO2 would result an increase in plant organic mass.

 

Here is the reality.

 

The petro-chemical industry loves this debate and fosters it's existence as a smokescreen from the real reality, one in which waste from their industry is poisoning our food supply, our children, and the planet. Since we are so focused on greenhouse gases from comparably clean outputs like cars and coal, we aren't aware of the other toxic substances being produced. The focus of this argument needs to be moved away from CO2 and more towards toxic chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly debatable whether CO2 levels influences climate change. Since C02 is the carbon source for plants to live, a concept that most Rush Limbaugh fans can't grasp, one could conclude that increase CO2 would result an increase in plant organic mass.

 

Here is the reality.

 

The petro-chemical industry loves this debate and fosters it's existence as a smokescreen from the real reality, one in which waste from their industry is poisoning our food supply, our children, and the planet. Since we are so focused on greenhouse gases from comparably clean outputs like cars and coal, we aren't aware of the other toxic substances being produced. The focus of this argument needs to be moved away from CO2 and more towards toxic chemicals.

 

worth saying twice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say it's not warming?

 

Just that humanity's footprint on the planet (deforestation, desertification, pollution, heat islands, etc.) bears no relation to it?

 

Nope. Didn't say that either. If I did, then, by all means, show me where. :rolleyes:

 

Kevbone Fever: Catch It!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...