Beginning to Unravel

[Fairweather]

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.

 

 

[prole]

What is beginning to unravel?

[tvashtarkatena]

FW and the Bone oughtta start a Truth Club. They could become the Gingrich/Perry of the conspiracy theory world.

[Fairweather]

Here comes the Static Earth Society....

[tvashtarkatena]

FW could sprinkle in a little missplaced Kant to plant "smartest guy in the room" into the brain stems of his invertebrate audience, while Kevbone could rock back and forth, repeating "Ron Paul" over and over in Matt-Damon-voce.

[G-spotter]

What is beginning to unravel?

 

You are Kevboning very well.

[tvashtarkatena]

This could be an AM radio game-changer.

[prole]

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

FW's in this to win this.

[G-spotter]

FW's spin is another data point in support of this thesis:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6b989370-164a-11e1-a691-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ekUAUenN

[Fairweather]

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

 

 

[Winter]

FW, the conclusions in the first article, discussing the magnitude of human caused climate change, are directly at odds with the conclusions in the last article you posted, which rejects the idea of human caused climate change. So which do you believe? Just curious.

[Fairweather]

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.

[kevbone]

What is beginning to unravel?

 

You are Kevboning very well.

 

 

And you are Dru (ing) very well.....

[jon]

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.

[ivan]

what climber among us could possible think the earth is NOT warming when they see the sad remains of so many glaciers in our area?

[Fairweather]

Did I say it's not warming?

[Fairweather]

It is certainly debatable whether CO2 levels influences climate change.

 

This statement, according to most of the true believers here, makes you a blasphemous, right-wing, regressive, flat-Earth society, corporate shill. Welcome aboard, Jon.

[prole]

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? Perhaps the moon is made of cheese after all...still waiting for the smoking gun on that one.

[Fairweather]

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.

[olyclimber]

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

[prole]

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.

 

Kevbone Fever: Catch It!

[Fairweather]

Just what I thought: another zealot who worships at the church of CO2 global warming. Let me know when your fellow tools have retooled their message such that it is once again a convenient tool. Tool.

[olyclimber]

name calling (from either side of the equation) is a mask. an attempt to distract from the actual argument.

 

and yes, i'm guilty of bringing it up now, when it just happens that fairweather is the guilty party. but it is true either way.

[Fairweather]