Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BFB

CO2 and warming went in lock-step

50 posts in this topic

In prehistory, CO2 and warming went in lock-step

French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists. The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago. These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas behind global warming. The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the atmospheric temperature. The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time. Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-prehistory-co2-lock-step.html#jCp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In prehistory, CO2 and warming went in lock-step

"“We’re saying that CO2 and Antarctic temperature vary at the same time, within 150 years approximately"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In prehistory, CO2 and warming went in lock-step

French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists. The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago. These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas behind global warming. The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the atmospheric temperature. The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time. Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news...k-step.html#jCp

How good is the temporal resolution?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a vast improvement on the 600years which was previously the best resolution they could muster. It identifies a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature over significant geological time scales.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a vast improvement on the 600years which was previously the best resolution they could muster. It identifies a clear relationship between CO2 and temperature over significant geological time scales.

Br Cornelius

Only the blind and economically interested cannot see a correlation between carbon gases and temperature, we did not need another study.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the blind and economically interested cannot see a correlation between carbon gases and temperature, we did not need another study.

the study says nothing about causation.

warmer water will outgass co2, cooler water will absorb more co2.

so you cannot take from this study that co2 caused the warming, its more likely that warming caused higher co2.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0177447d843a970d-pi

fig+1.jpg

http://hockeyschtick...s-man-made.html

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming.

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

fig+1.jpg

http://hockeyschtick...s-man-made.html

Without a link to the actual paper there is no way of establishing how much of that report is pure bull****.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the study says nothing about causation.

warmer water will outgass co2, cooler water will absorb more co2.

so you cannot take from this study that co2 caused the warming, its more likely that warming caused higher co2.

CO2 has the physical property of causing entrapment of infrared radiation so it is more than reasonable to conclude that increasing the CO2 will cause more heat energy to become trapped. It is far more unlikely that increasing a known greenhouse gas will have no effect on the energy balance and accumulation of the system. Trapped, or should I say delayed energy, has to appear somewhere within the system whilst it is experiencing its increased residence time. Assuming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere by fossil fuel emissions will have no effect on the system is the most illogical conclusion to draw given the known physical properties of the gas.

The only point of reasonable disagreement would be the degree of warming caused. Denial of any warming effect is unreasonable.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a link to the actual paper there is no way of establishing how much of that report is pure bull****.

Br Cornelius

"Abstract

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Highlights

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions."

from this link here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how they will "hide" this data and "trick" the public into ignoring it. Thanks Little Fish, it was a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the face of it I would say that the correlation would be very hard to justify considering that temperature is a very noisy signal with variability on a yearly to decadal basis, but CO2 has shown a steady rise on the global mixed level.

mauna_loa_carbon_dioxide.png

How you can see a close correlation between that and this is beyond me;

GISS_temp_Y2K_adjustment.gif

The analysis seems highly tenuous when I read the actual paper in full there, but I am no expert in detailed data analysis so I will leave it to a real expert to pass judgement on this paper. Overall though the thrust of their paper is that the strong upward trend in CO2 is a response to some other forcing, and that the evidence for this is the lag lead response of the sinks in responding to this natural forcing. It focuses on tiny variations in the temperature response whilst ignoring the massive linear trend in Co2 which dominates all of their analysis "correspondences". Here's the real critique though;

These are claims made in a fresh publication by Humlum et al. (2012). However, when seeing them in the context of their analysis, they seem to be on par with the misguided notion that the rain from clouds cannot come from the oceans because the clouds are intermittent and highly variable whereas the oceans are just there all the time. I think that the analysis presented in Humlum et al. (2012) is weak on four important accounts: the analysis, the physics, reviewing past literature, and logic.

This time Humlum et al. did not directly remove part of the data which didn’t fit their conclusions, however, they chose to use a short record of global mean CO2 from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), starting from 1980, rather than the longer Keeling curve from Mauna Loa starting in 1958.

The two CO2 records, however, are almost identical over 1980-2012 (green curves in Fig. 1), and hence it would be more appropriate to use the longer record because CO2 is expected to play a role for long timescales. Hence, the Humlum et al. paper highlights the need for sorting out some classic misunderstandings, namely the mix-up between time scales. We have already discussed the absurdly misguided claims of a “halted global warming” based on a brief period after 1998 (here and here and ….)

hss2012fig1-12-FALSEFALSEFALSE.png

In order to assess the claims made in Humlum et al. (2012) (in italics above), I have repeated part of their analysis and got very similar results (all reproduced with the on-line R-script). Fig 1 here is a replication of figure 1 in Humlum et al. (2012) and I got almost identical results using the Keeling curve from Mauna Loa starting in 1958 rather than the global curve starting in 1980.

Fig. 2 corresponds to the lower panel in their figure 2, and shows the results of my attempt to reproduce the quantities making up the basis for their claims: their ‘DIFF12′ quantities (a type of differentiation operator) which really is meant to describe the rate of changes in the original curves.

hss2012fig2b-12-FALSEFALSEFALSE.png

Their main argument about causality between temperature and CO2, however, was based on a lagged correlation analysis between ‘DIFF12′ series from temperature and CO2. Fig. 3 corresponds to figure 4b in Humlum et al. (2012):

hss2012fig4b-12-FALSEFALSEFALSE.png

Fig. 3: Lag correlation where the lines mark the peak value obtained in Humlum et al. Grey curve is from the longer Keeling record. Here the HadCRUT3, which was one of the data sets they used.

The correlation that I get is similar but not identical to theirs. Using a longer record did affect the lag correlation analysis as seen in Fig. 3. Nevertheless, the analysis still indicated that CO2 lagged the temperature. Big surprise?

No! Applying correlation to the results from the ‘DIFF12′ quantities cannot detect any trends – it’s just a simple mathematical fact. These results merely confirm already well-known facts, which ironically, they themselves hinted to in their paper (but they obviously did not make the connection):

changes in atmospheric CO
2
appears to be initiated near or a short distance south of the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two Poles within a year or so.

The answer is of course: El Nino! A google scholar search with ‘”El Nino” AND CO2′ gives more than 20,000 hits, and Humlum et al. have rediscovered well-known facts which Keeling and Revelle discussed already in 1985.

El Ninos affect the CO2 concentrations for a brief time interval, through their effect on temperature and marine biology. But unlike Keeling and Revelle, this discovery caused quite some confusion, as evident in the following citation:

…showing that changes in the emission of anthropogene CO
2
are not causing changes in atmospheric CO
2
.

So how did they get to this conclusion? The answer is in their analytical set-up, and for this they have quite an unusual record (here and here).

It’s well-known that taking differences also picks up short-term rather than long-term variations where mean trends are represented by a constant value. Hence, a correlation analysis is bound to give mean trends zero weight. This is demonstrated in Fig. 4:

diffdemo.png

Fig. 4: A trivial demonstration with two similar sinusoinds with noise super-imposed, one shown in black and one in red plotted on top of each other - differencing methods fail to pick up the longer signals. The lower panel shows a lag-correlation based on a differenting method that fails to pick up the signal we know is present. In other words, the method is inappropriate for the task. Also reproduced with the on-line R-script.

Simply by choosing a method that ignores trends associated with human activity, they argue that atmospheric CO2 is ‘largely independent of humans‘. This logic is circular reasoning, but since they did not specify time scales, their argument gets a bit fuzzy (the argument is true on short time scales but not on decadal time scales – just see the trends in the figure).

The set-up with ‘DIFF12′ also does a strange mix to the data and gives weird results as already noted on Troy’s scratchpad. It is indeed easy to show that the ‘DIFF12′ methods fail to pick up long-term co-variations, as done in Fig. 5:

diff12demo1.png

Fig. 5: A demonstration with the DIFF12 method used in Humlum et al. The method fails to pick up the long-term co-variations. The correlation peak should be at zero lag, but the method mixes scrambles time steps. Also reproduced with the on-line R-script.

Contrast these results with the claim made by Humlum et al. (2012):

the association between periods of maximum DIFF12 CO
2
increase and no or negative ocean surface temperature change … is difficult to reconcile with the notion of atmospheric CO
2
changes controlling changes in ocean surface temperature.

Choosing a method discarding the trends may get one into trouble, however, one would also expect a consistent picture in terms of physics. Here is another glitch, and the weak-on-physics aspect is due to the failure to appreciate what implications their claims would have for the climate sensitivity.

They implicitly expected that minute and almost invisible similarities between the inter-annual variations in CO2 would have a visible effect on inter-annual variation in the global mean temperature (this is their hidden “strawman” argument; see curves in Fig. 1). Yet they ignored the CO2‘s steady march upwards.

Furthermore, they failed to note that the forcing is proportional to the natural logarithm of CO2ln(conventration in volume). Such are omissions expected from novices (my speculation: this is somehow related to the composition of the author team consisting of a professor in geology, a statistician from a telephone company, and an astrophysicist).

The extraordinary claims about the relationship between temperature, CO2, and human activity made in Humlum et al. (2012) also makes me think of a Carl Sagan citation: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I must say I’m disappointed by the reviewing process of Global Planetary Change and this is the second (Humlum et al., 2011) unpersuasive paper in that journal making such bold claims.

Earth shattering claims should meet rigorous evaluations. It would be useful for reviewers to google the authors of the papers, as some do have quite a track record of well-established mistakes (here and here and here and here).

In addition to failing the analytical set-up and the physics (which should have been picked up), they also provided some unusual citations, missed important works, and referred to questionable publications.

Furthermore, using the NOAA ESRL CO2data, Humlum et al. could have sought advice with the data providers before submitting their paper (the ESRL is not mentioned in their acknowledgement, and I wonder if they would have a view on this analysis). Indeed, the ESRL encourages such quality checks according to the heading of the data file:

If the data are obtained for potential use in a publication or presentation, ESRL should be informed at the outset of the nature of this work. If the ESRL data are essential to the work, or if an important result or conclusion depends on the ESRL data, co-authorship may be appropriate. This should be discussed at an early stage in the work. Manuscripts using the ESRL data should be sent to ESRL for review before they are submitted for publication so we can insure that the quality and limitations of the data are accurately represented.

I also wonder what the affiliated universities think about Humlum et al.s work and their past record, and I think misguided work, as presented here, is not exactly good advertisement. Furthermore, they are also involved with an organisation called “klimarealistene” (with collaborations with the Heartland Institute), which claims that the IPCC has ‘cheated‘ in terms of the temperature data (which ironically, they themselves rely on in Humlum et al., 2012) and produced the ‘famous hockey stick’ (The people thanked in the acknowledgement reads like who-is-who within “klimarealistene”).

A good thing is that Humlum et al. now have obliged themselves to share their data, results and methods by using the CO2 data from NOAA:

RECIPROCITY – Use of these data implies an agreement to reciprocate. Laboratories making similar measurements agree to make their own data available to the general public and to the scientific community in an equally complete and easily accessible form. Modelers are encouraged to make available to the community, upon request, their own tools used in the interpretation of the ESRL data, namely well documented model code, transport fields, and additional information necessary for other scientists to repeat the work and to run modified versions. Model availability includes collaborative support for new users of the models.

I’ve asked them to share their results, data and methods before, but so far with little success. My job as a climate scientist is to replicate results. Further progress may take place if we can go through the analysis together, test methods and data, and agree on which give robust answers and which don’t.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

More of a wimper than a bang.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the face of it I would say that the correlation would be very hard to justify considering that temperature is a very noisy signal with variability on a yearly to decadal basis, but CO2 has shown a steady rise on the global mixed level.

How you can see a close correlation between that and this is beyond me;

the correlation is with changes in temp and changes in co2, not absolutes, its the difference between velocity and acceleration or derivative as doug would put it.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

the correlation is with changes in temp and changes in co2, not absolutes, its the difference between velocity and acceleration or derivative as doug would put it.

http://c3headlines.t...447d843a970d-pi

It ignores the elephant in the room which is the dominant upward rise of atmospheric CO2 by stripping it out and then focusing on variation which represent a tiny fraction of that dominent rise. This type of deceptive analysis has been attempted many times by skeptics - but it rarely gets into print.

Its a form of pedantry which ignore the central element of the data.

Its really weak analysis even if its conclusions are even partly true. Its another one of those papers which seems really surprising that it had enough of a story to tell for anyone to feel it worth publishing. its also telling that they rushed it into the public domain before the dust had even settled - it usually would cost me about $35.00 to read such an offering.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout that new radiation belt they found around Earth. Will that effect this process in any way. Or is there still too little information ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout that new radiation belt they found around Earth. Will that effect this process in any way. Or is there still too little information ?

unless its new its unlikely to change anything - that is unless it shows a strong upward trend of some kind over the last 100 or so years.

just because it was undiscovered and had no recordable effect on the planet doesn't mean it wasn't already part of the overall mix though.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its also telling that they rushed it into the public domain before the dust had even settled - it usually would cost me about $35.00 to read such an offering.

it was not "rushed into the public domain"

it was peer reviewed and published in a science journal as is standard.

it costs $39.95 for the full paper, so it's not put in the "public domain"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was not "rushed into the public domain"

it was peer reviewed and published in a science journal as is standard.

it costs $39.95 for the full paper, so it's not put in the "public domain"

http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658

I never paid for it but freely downloaded it from the internet - that fairly public domain by my reckoning :tu:

Have you read it ??

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read it ??
yes i've read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how they will "hide" this data and "trick" the public into ignoring it. Thanks Little Fish, it was a good read.

going by the track record, i'd say the alarmists will definitely use obfuscation with an overdose of personal attacks, abuse and ad hominem fallacies.

here is a version of the full paper

http://tech-know-gro...umlum_et_al.pdf

a sizeable paper, but here are some choice quotes

"it is evident from the visual analysis that changes in atmospheric CO2 are generally not tracking changes in anthropogene emissions, which is contrary to expectation, if anthropogene CO2 is the main driver for the observed rise in global atmospheric CO2."

so man is not the main effect on co2, let alone temperature.

"In all four cases there is a negative correlation from the time of release and 17-24 months later between DIFF12 changes in anthropogene CO2 and DIFF12 changes in atmospheric CO2, showing that changes in the emission of anthropogene CO2 are not causing changes in atmospheric CO2"

hmm, "negative correlation" i wonder if a believer will be along to obfuscate everyone into distraction and confusion. And there's that lovely word "showing", and all based on empirical observations. no george lucas computer cartoons in sight.

"The lag is about 4 months for Ascension (8oS), 9 months for the South Pole (90oS), 14 months for Mauna Loa (20oN), and about 19 months for Alert (82oN) in the High Arctic. As each station is correlated with identical values (DIFF12 for anthropogene CO2) the observed lags suggest a sequence of events starting near Equator in the Southern Hemisphere, and from there propagating towards the two poles."

so the co2 increases originate in the ocean near the equator and propagate out to the poles over time. of course we already knew that solubilty of co2 has an inverse relationship with temperature water, meaning you warm the oceans and it gives off co2.

"suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions"

there it is again

"As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur."

and this confirms that ocean temperature releases the co2 (which overwhelms man made co2, or man made co2 makes up some of the difference of a natural threshold).

"As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2-8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment. Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around."

showing that alramists have confused cause and effect once again.

"Numerical global climate models generally assume atmospheric CO2 in combination with alleged feed-back effects on atmospheric humidity and cloud cover to have a clear net warming effect, and that changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore represent a main driver for global temperature changes. For that reason changes in temperature should therefore be lagging behind corresponding changes in CO2. However, figures 4, 6, 8 and 10 show correlation between changes in temperature and CO2 to be negative for negative offsets (temperature lagging CO2), indicating that changes towards higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 then empirically would associate with less rapid temperature increase or even a temperature decrease. However, as this would invalidate the basic assumption of CO2 having a clear net warming effect, the perception of temperature lagging behind CO2 must therefore be rejected. A visual inspection of the data displayed in figures 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 also show the notion of temperature lagging CO2 to be implausible."

nice!

"A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al. 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation"

exactly as i've been trying to point out for 5 years.

three wheels on my wagon......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to attack anything other than the weakness of the argument. Basically ignore the trend - hide the increase :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hopeful thing about the demonstration that CO2 and warming seem to go together is that it never got out of control but seemed to be self-correcting. The fears of melting the Siberian methane causing a Venus effect therefore don't have geological support. It also seems that ecosystems do fine (even better) during warm periods than during cold ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hopeful thing about the demonstration that CO2 and warming seem to go together is that it never got out of control but seemed to be self-correcting. The fears of melting the Siberian methane causing a Venus effect therefore don't have geological support. It also seems that ecosystems do fine (even better) during warm periods than during cold ones.

The only issue I would take with that position is that there has never been a situation quite like this one. There are natural limits to how much greenhouse gases are available to be released - but the current system is releasing billions of tonnes of carbon which was previously deeply sequestered and unavailable.

The self correction mechansim which has always come into effect in the past is that the gulf stream has melted the arctic ice cap and caused a blocking body of fresh water in the North Atlantic. This has the effect of stopping the Deep ocean conveyor which prevents heat from getting to the arctic. This results in going from a zero ice situation to a rapid refreezing of thr arctic which doesn't stop until most of Northern Europe is part of the polar Ice cap. This then persists for thousands of years. Worrying signs of the imminense of this possibility are a 30% decrease in the strength of the Gulf Stream in recent decades.

The problem here is that man is capable of continuing to pump out billions of tonnes of carbon which would provide sufficient heating to make the likelyhood of a refreeze less - in this scenario Northern Europe would see a temporary plunge in temperatures followed by a continued gradual rise. Man is the fly in the ointment as his feedback mechanism has never occurred before so its very difficult to predict how he will effect the trajectory of the normal cycle.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think that human caused CO2 in the atmosphere will drop off naturally, as oil prices rise with increasing difficulty getting it and as other energy sources come into play.

The big question is whether this will be enough. It is worrisome, and I very much wish we had technologies that in emergency could be used to pull CO2 and methane and whatever out of the atmosphere. I just do not see any sort of international control on their emissions being effective. and unilateral actions while they may help a little are not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think that human caused CO2 in the atmosphere will drop off naturally, as oil prices rise with increasing difficulty getting it and as other energy sources come into play.

The big question is whether this will be enough. It is worrisome, and I very much wish we had technologies that in emergency could be used to pull CO2 and methane and whatever out of the atmosphere. I just do not see any sort of international control on their emissions being effective. and unilateral actions while they may help a little are not enough.

But we do have the technology, just not the energy to run it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.